P 685 


• B431 

SPEECH 

Copy 1 

OF 

HON. JOHN 

BELL, OF TENNESSEE. 

0 

UIN 

THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS UNDER THE LECOMPTON 


CONSTITUTION. 



Delivered in the Senate of the United States, March 18th, 1858. 


Mr. BELL. Mr. President: It is my misfortune 
to be obliged to address the Senate at this late hour 
of the day, upon a subject of so much importance, 
or not at all. After the speech of the honorable 
Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] I shall be com¬ 
pelled to trespass longer upon the indulgence of the 
Senate than 1 had hoped would be necessary. He 
has made issues, he has stated facts, he has promul¬ 
gated doctrines and arguments from his seat in the 
Senate to-day, which no man can pass unnoticed 
who takes the views I do of this question. He says, 
in substance, that it is a question of union or dis¬ 
union ; it is no sectional question, but one which 
concerns the whole country—the North as well as 
the South. He has proclaimed to the Senate that he 
has estimated the value of the Union, and that, upon 
a proper occasion, he is ready to state that value. 
With him it is a myth, a false idol; and he fears that 
the State of Kentucky, which my honorable and elo¬ 
quent friend [Air. Crittenden] so well represents, 
has worshipped and loved, not wisely but too well. 
He has brought the question to a point—an issue 
which it becomes us all to ponder. I have been fear¬ 
ful that there were such calculations as he has sug¬ 
gested, founded on the possible result of this ques¬ 
tion ; but I had before no evidence ot it. It was only a 
vague dread, an impression resting on my mind ; but 
now we must meet it as an admitted fact. It is now 
placed before us openly, boldly, directly; and there¬ 
fore I feel called upon to notice it in every aspect to 
which he has pointed. 

I do not mean to go into an estimate of the value 
of the Union, nor of the consequences which would 
flow from its destruction; but I mean to go into an 
investigation of the question before the Senate—the 
proposition to admit Kansas into the Union under 
the Lecompton Consti ution—to show that the rejec¬ 
tion of this measure would not be a fit pretext to be 
adopted by the South for the purpose of leading to 
that final issue to which the Senator from Georgia 
has alluded. It concerns not only the Senate, but 
the whole country, to look at this' question in a dif¬ 
ferent light from that in which the honorable Sena¬ 
tor from Ge- rgia has presented it. I am tempted 
by these considerations to depart from any regular 
course of argument, such as I bad prescribed for 
myself, in order to notice at the outset some of his 
most unfounded statements in regard to the true 
facts of the case. I do not mean any personal dis¬ 
respect to the honorable Senator; I do not mean to 
sav that he has wilfully presented a false view of the 
case; but many of his statements of fact are wholly 
unfounded. 

I propose to go back to the original organization of 
the Territorial Government in Kansas—a part of the 
history of Kansas which I had intended to pass over, 
with a summary statement only of such tacts—un¬ 


/it o 


disputed facts—as might be found chronicled in the 
public journals, without going into any minute in¬ 
vestigation of them; but I now feel compelled to 
look more carefully into all the details of the subject, 
by the exigencies and importance of the question, by 
the demands which I consider the country has on 
every man having a seat here, to be well informed 
upon every material point connected with the subject. 
Like the honorable Senator from Kentucky, I do 
not mean to refer to the organization of the Territo¬ 
rial Government in Kansas for the purpose ot jus¬ 
tifying the party which has opposed that Govern¬ 
ment, for I mean to become the partisan of neither 
side in this controversy. I have considered from the 
very origin of these difficulties—the passage of the 
Kausas-Nebraska act—that there has been more of 
party interest and necessity than of any possible 
good to the country connected with this whole move¬ 
ment; and when I say this, I do not mean to impugn 
the motives of honorable Senators who disclaim any 
such party interests. They may be unconscious of 
them. I therefore give them credit for their dis¬ 
claimer. 

I shall not at this time enter into a full statement 
of the facts connected with the election of members 
to the first Territorial Legislature, which took place 
in 1855, or with the armed intrusion of the people of 
the western borders of Missouri into Kansas, at that 
election. The Senator from Georgia says that the 
statements which have been made on this subject are 
entitled to no credit. He ridicules them so far as 
they are made on the authority of individuals engag¬ 
ed in that invasion, as it has been called, as the idle 
boasts of vain glorious individuals. I admit that, 
as a general rule, little credit is to be attached to 
such statements; but I will lay before the Senate 
some facts that are founded upon that sort of record 
which the honorable Senator says will last as long 
as society lasts. I shall refer to authentic, well-con¬ 
firmed facts, proved at the time of their occurrence 
bv contemporary evidence—testimony taken by men 
of credit and good character. I refer, in this par¬ 
ticular case, to the investigations of members of 
Congress, and of both sides in politics, commissioned 
and authorized to investigate. 

Now, what are the most material and prominent 
facts connected with the election in 1855? I may, 
possibly, go into a fuller statement of *the circum- 
stancesof that election before I close my remarks. 
A census was taken under a provision of the organic 
law of Kansas, one month before that e’ection, and 
the returns showed that there were twenty-nine 
hundred and three (2,903) qualified voters then in 
the Territory of Kansas. The election came on, and 
six thousand three hundred and seven (6,307) votes 
were polled, as appeared from the poll-books. Of 
the twenty-nine hundred and three (2,903) returned 







2 


on the census list, only eight hundred and ninety- 
eight (898) voted. Where were the remainder of the 
twenty-nine hundred and odd reported in the census 
returns? As the honorable Senator from Kentucky 
has spoken of interviews he has had with gentle¬ 
men connected with this transaction, I will tell what 
I have learned from similar sources. I understand 
that the census returns were, in part, made out in 
the border counties of Missouri; and it appears from 
an examination of the poli-books, that two thousand 
persons and upwards whose names were on the 
census lists did not vote in the election. We cannot 
draw any certain inference from this fact, whether 
the two thousand who did not vote were Free-State 
men who were driven from the polls, or how other¬ 
wise. I omy state the simple fact that but about 
nine hundred of them voted. The argument on the 
other side is, that of the twenty-nine hundred per¬ 
sons whose names were on the census returns, seven¬ 
teen hundred were emigrants from the Southern 
States, and but twelve hundred from the free States. 
We do not kuow wh t proportion of the nine hun¬ 
dred who voted were Free-State men from the IS orth- 
ern i States, or what portion came from the Southern 
States; nor is it material to decide that question, for 
only about one-third of the whole voted. The hon¬ 
orable Senator has spoken of intrinsic evidence; he 
has appealed to what he considers the monumental 
record that is to last as long as society lasts. I ap¬ 
peal to it too. 

Mr. TOOMBS. Do I understand my friend to say, 
that of the twenty-nine hundred voters recorded on 
the census, onlv nine hundred voted? 

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TOOMBS. I assure my friend he is mistaken, 
for my friend from Vermont [Mr. Collamer] said in 
his report that six thousand voted. His complaint 
was that they doubled. 

Mr. BELL. I see that my friend from Georgia 
does not understand the question at all, and I was 
utterly astonished when 1 heard him in his state¬ 
ment passing over or denying the principal facts of 
the case. 

Mr. COLLAMER. Will my friend from Tennessee 
allow me to say a word? 

Mr. BELL. It is needless, I know the facts; but 
I will allow the Senator from Vermont to say a word, 
as he was alluded to by the Senator from Georgia. 

Mr. COLLAMER. The names of the six thousand 
who voted are all on the roll, and when you count 
those names, there are but eight hundred of them 
who are on the census list. 

Mr. TOOMBS. I do not understand that. 

Mr. BELL. Does the honorable Senator from 
Georgia say he has examined the names ? 

Mr. TOOMBS. They have been examined by a 
friend of mine. 

Mr. BELL. Is it not a fact that only about nine 
hundred of those whose names ivere on the census 
list, voted? 

Mr. TOOMBS. I think that is a mistake. 

Mr. BELL. I can refer to the evidence. 

Mr. TOOMBS. What evidence? 

Mr. BELL. To the report of the names that were 
polled, compared with those on the census list. 

Mr. TOOMBS. That, I think, you will find not to 
be a record. That is the difficulty. 

Mr. BELh. But it shows the returns of the elec¬ 
tion, and is evidonce. 

Mr. TOOMBS. There is no such record in the 
world. Let me explain to my friend what I mean. 
The census tlfat was taken was a record. As for all 
these accounts, by which it is made to appear that 
only eight hundred of those who were on the census 
list voted, they do not appear by any lawful author¬ 
ity—by any record. Has any person, on whcLn the 
Senator from Tennessee relies, ascertained the fact? 

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TOOMBS. It was never ascertained by any 
authority. 


Mr. BELL. The Committee of Investigation of 
the House of Representatives ascertained it. 

Mr. TOOMBS. I do not consider th ir report a 
record; but perhaps I do not understand what a 
record is. 

Mr. BELL. Perhaps I do not know what a record 
is. I refer to all the record that could exist in such 
a ca«e, and I say that this fact is stated on sworn 
evidence. Will that pass for evidence? It was tes¬ 
timony taken by authority of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, by members of both political parties. 

Mr. TOOMBS. If it is evidence in itself, it is evi¬ 
dence for the purpose—not otherwise. 

Mr. BELL. The clerk of the Committee of In¬ 
vestigation compared the names on the census rolls 
with those on the election return lis's, or poll-books; 
and-of the twenty-nine hundred returned on the 
census rolls in February, 1855, he could find only 
eight hundred and ninety-eight names recorded on 
the poll-books or list of voters returned in March. 
Now, the question is, where did the other five thou¬ 
sand and odd votes that were polled on the 80th of 
March, 1855, come from? From over the borders, 
of course, or made up by forged returns. These are 
facts, as well authenticated as facts of the kind could 
be—not in ancient times, not in the dark ages, but 
in the present day of light. These facts were ascer¬ 
tained under the supervision of a joint commission 
of partisans on both sides of the question. I do not 
desire, however, to pursue this inquiry now, for I 
mean to resume it at another time. I will merely 
say here, that at this election, by these means, every 
member of the Council and jjHouse of Representa¬ 
tives elected, except one, was of the Pro-slavery 
party. Governor Reeder set aside the election cer¬ 
tificates in seveval cases, on the ground of irregu¬ 
larity or fraud, and new r elections ivere ordered; but 
in those cases wffiere Free-State men were returned 
elected, the Legislature rejected their claims to sit as 
members, and admitted those who had been set aside 
by the Governor. The Pro-Slavery party thus se¬ 
cured the whole legislature, except one member, as 
I understand the history of the case. 

Mr. TOOMBS. That is true. 

Mr. BELL. The honorable Senator admits that 
to be true. It was all a one-sided affair, and made 
so by the five thousand and odd voters in that elec¬ 
tion not found on the census returns. The honora¬ 
ble Senator in the course of his speech appealed to 
the judgment of the impartial—to such as have no 
connection with either of the parties in Kansas—and 
asked what would be their decision upon this ques¬ 
tion. I appeal to the same impartial tribunal. That 
Legislature was elected chiefly by voters from Mis¬ 
souri—by citizens who had no right, by the organic 
law f , to interpose in the election! It was irregular, 
and unlawful in every sense of the w r ord. 

But, sir, I am anticipating my argument. I 
thought, however, that I would travel out of my 
course for a few moments, in order to show that the 
honorable Senator from Georgia w r as totally mis¬ 
taken as to the facts that I considered fundamental 
in coming to a right understanding of this question. 
I saw r that the honorable Senator from Kentucky, 
not having looked into these points as carefully, 
perhaps, as I had done, ivas utterly amazed—he 
seemed to be confounded, ivhen his friend from 
Georgia gave such a totally different version and 
coloring to the facts connected with the election of 
1855, from what he had understood. 

The honorable Senator from Georgia has furnished 
me in the course of his argument with some points 
for consideration, for which I thank him. He tells 
us in substance, and plainly enough, that it is victory 
which is now r to be contended "for. This measure 
must be carried, now that an issue is made up on it. 
He has pronounced high and over-wrought eulogies 
on the course of the distinguished gentleman now 
at the head of affairs in relation to this question. I 
shall attempt to show how far, and with w hat justice, 
| they are entitled to the eloquent eulogium of (he 




honorable Senator from Georgia; and this I shall do 
not, with a view of manifesting any personal disre¬ 
spect to those high functionaries. I do not seek, in 
anything I shall say now or at any time, to detract 
from the high personal character of those distin¬ 
guished gentlemen. I am not sure, however, that 
they have been the bold and undaunted men that 
they ought to be in the positions which they occupy, 
at such a time as this, in such a crisis as this, and 
upon such a question as the present. I fear that 
they have cowered and quailed before such bold men 
as the Senator from Georgia, and others who concur 
with him as to the policy which ought to be pursued 
in relation to Kansas affairs. 

The Senator from Georgia, throughout his speech, 
seemed to be resolved upon victory, in carrying out 
all his plans connected with Kansas affairs, what¬ 
ever consequences may follow; and I am afraid that 
the President and his Cabinet have been constrained 
to espouse this measure under the positive and im¬ 
perious requisition of such gentlemen as the Senator 
from Georgia. 

I intend, if I have time, to review the Kansas-Nc- 
braska act,- and its consequences, respectfully to¬ 
wards the authors of it personally, that the country 
may learn a lesson from it. I shall not undertake to 
\ teach the Senate to what extremes the passions of 
men may lead them, when they once get fully com 
j mitted to a violent controversy on such questions. 
It was the passion for victory that carried the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska bill through Congress, under circum- 
„ stances more extraordinary than ever attended the 
passage of any measure, so important in its conse¬ 
quences, through any legislative bod}', except per- 
haps, in the times yf revolutionary France. I do not 
mean to say the gentlemen were actuated by bad 
principles or mischievous purposes; but Senators 
and Representatives seemed to me to have been so 
inflamed and exasperated by the fierce collisions o 
sentiment and opinions between them and their op¬ 
ponents, that their reason was taken captive; they 
became infatuated, and all their energies came to be 
concentrated upon one purpose, that of victory. It 
will be well to contrast the circumstances and re¬ 
sults of that measure with the circumstances attend¬ 
ing the present question, that we may form some ra¬ 
tional estimate of the real value of those principles 
or objects sought to be established or accomplished 
by urging this measure through Congress on the 
ode side, and of the evil consequences which may 
follow its adoption on the other. It is more than in¬ 
dicated, it is boldly assumed, by some gentlemen, 
that the rejection of this measure will be regarded 
as a decision that no more slave States are to be ad¬ 
mitted into the Union, and the consequences which 
may follow such a decision are pointed to in no 
equivocal language. 

There is no gentleman here with whom I differ as 
to the value of the union of these States, to whom I 
do not accord honesty and patriotism of purpose. 
There is simply betweeu us a difference in judgment 
as to the true interest of this great country ; the true 
interest of the South, as well as of the North, con¬ 
nected with the Union. When my attention is in¬ 
vited to the consideration of the advantages and 
blessings that may fo‘low disunion to the South, 1 
shun the subject as one that is speculative only, and 
prematurely brought forward. That is a field of in¬ 
quiry into which I do not propose now to enter. When 
an issue is made, when a question does arise de¬ 
manding such an inquiry as that, I shall be ready to 
enter upon it, and to estimate the value of the Union; 
but I will not anticipate the occurrence of any such 
contingency. When the North shall by any delib¬ 
erate act deprive the South of any fair and just and 
equal participation in the benefits of the Union—if, 
for example, the Territory now proposed to be ad¬ 
mitted into the Union as a State had not been sub¬ 
ject to an interdict of slavery for thirty years—if it 
were a Territorv such as that lying west of Arkansas, 
by climate adapted to slave labor,' - and by population 


3 

already a slave Territory; and if, on an application 
of such a Territory for admission into the Uuion as 
a slave State, the powerful North, without any of 
the feelings and resentments naturally growing out 
of the repeal of the Missouri compromise in regard 
to Kansas, should deliberately announce to the 
South, “ you shall have no more slave States,” that 
would afford a pretext with which the South might 
with some reason, and with some assurance of the'ap- 
proval of the civilized world and of posterity, seek 10 
dissolve the Union. I know that it is supposed by 
some that the day will come when the North, in the 
arrogance of its power, will furnish just such a pre¬ 
text as I have indicated; and the Senator from 
Georgia and others have argued this question on the 
ground that it will come; but I must see it come be¬ 
fore I will calculate the value of this Union. I trust 
that day will never come. I do not believe it will 
come, if the South is wise and true to itself. I would 
not have the South truckle or surrender any of their 
rights,. I would not have them yield one jot ©r tittle 
of their rights; but I would have them make no 
questionable issues in advance, stir up no strife upon 
unnecessary abstract questions, having no practical 
value, but to do always what is just and right upon 
all questions. When a people or a Territory applies 
lor admission into the Union under a Constitution 
fairly formed, with the assent of the people exclu¬ 
ding slavery, I would admit it promptly ; and when 
an application comes, on the other hand, from the 
people of a Territory who have fairly formed a Con¬ 
stitution recognising slavery, I would insist upon its 
admission as a slave State. If the North should not 
agree to this, it would then be time enough to con¬ 
sider of the proper remedy. But I would make no 
such issue with the North now, and before any occa¬ 
sion for it has arisen; and I regret most sincerely to 
hear any Senator from the North suggesting that 
such an issue will ever be tendered from that quarter. 

I have been led to make these remarks, altogether 
out of the course of argument I had intended to pur¬ 
sue, by reason of the unexpected speech of the Sen¬ 
ator from Georgia on this question—his extraordi¬ 
nary statements and avowals, both as to doctrine 
and matters of fact. I have felt it necessary, at the 
outset of my remarks, to meet some of them. 

Now, Mr. President, unless this is to be the inau¬ 
guration of a sort of saturnalia of principle; unless, 
from this time forth, there is nothing to be consid¬ 
ered as established or permanent in this country; 
unless all the old landmarks are to be removed; un¬ 
less the waters are to be let out, and all the highways 
are to be broken up, it would be an easy matt .t— the 
most easy task in the world—to demonstrate that, 
according to all sound principles, there is at this 
time no application before Congress, with the assent 
of the people of Kansas, for admission into the Union 
as a State. I do not know whether other Senators 
have thought of the question in that aspect or not. 

What is the true doctrine on this subject? I had 
supposed that there could be no disagreement as to 
the true principles connected with the rights and 
owers of the people in forming a State Constitution; 
ut since I have heard the speech of the Senator 
from Georgia, I do not know what principle he 
agrees to. I sav that in no disrespect; but I thought 
he was particularly wild, shooting extra fiammmtia 
nuznia mundi, on those high points of doctrine which 
he, in some parts of his speech, thought proper to 
enunciate. Does any person here deny the proposi¬ 
tion, that the people of a Territory, in the formation 
of a State Constitution, are to that extent— quoadhoc— 
sovereign and uncontrollable, though still owing 
obedience to the provisional Government of the Ter¬ 
ritory? Will any Senator contend, that the Territo¬ 
rial Legislature can either give to the people any 
power over that subject which they did not possess 
before, or withhold from them any which they did 
possess? The Territorial Legislature cannot dictate 
any one provision of the Constitution which the peo¬ 
ple think proper to form. Who is prepared to con- 




tend that Congress can do anything more in this re¬ 
spect than a Territorial Legislature? It is usual for 
the Territorial Legislature, when the people desire 
to apply for admission into the Union, in the absence 
of an enabling act of Congress, to pass a law pro¬ 
viding for the assembling of a Convention to form a 
State Constitution. But that is a mere usage, re¬ 
sorted to when Congress has not thought proper to 
pass what is called an enabling act. What is an 
enabling act? Nothing more than to signify to the 
people of a Territory, that if they shall think proper 
to meet in Convention and form a State Constitution, 
in compliance with certain forms therein prescribed, 
to insure a fair expression of the people’s will, Con¬ 
gress is prepared to admit them into the Union as a 
State. 

But such an act gives no more power to the people 
over the subject of a Constitution than an act of a 
Territorial Legislature. But suppose the people, 
either under an act of the Territorial Legislature or 
of Congress, meet in Convention, by delegates chosen 
by the people, and form a Constitution, what then ? 
Has it any vitality as a Constitution? Does it trans¬ 
form the Territory into a State? Has it any binding 
force or effect, either upon individuals or upon the 
community? Nobody pretends that it has any such 
.force. It is only after the acceptance of the Consti¬ 
tution, and the admission of the Territory into the 
Union as a State, that there is any vigor or validity 
in a Constitution so formed. Before that time, it is 
worth no more than the parchment on which its pro¬ 
visions are -written, so far as any legal or constitu¬ 
tional validity is concerned. 

But, upon principle, the people of a Territory, 
without any act of the Territorial Legislature, with¬ 
out an enabling act of Congress, can hold public 
meetings and elect delegates to meet in Convention 
for the purpose of forming a Constitution ; and when 
formed, it has all the essential attributes of a valid 
Constitution, as one formed in any other way. Many 
Senators contend that it is the inalienable and inde¬ 
feasible right of the people of a State at all times to 
change their Constitution in any manner the} 7 - think 
proper. Ths doctrine I do not admit, in regard to 
the people of a State; but, in reference to the forma¬ 
tion of a Constitution by the people of a Territory, 
there can be no question as k> the soundness of this 
doctrine. They can form a Constitutkn by delegates 
voluntarily chosen and sent to a Convention, but 
what is it worth when it is formed? Nothing at all, 
until Congress shall accept it and admit the Territory 
into the Union as a State under that Constitution. 
It is worth no more in that case than in the case of 
a Constitution formed under a Territorial act or an 
act of Congress ; but it is worth just as much. 

The honorable Senator from Georgia says that the 
special message of the President on this subject will 
stand as a lasting monument of his patriotism, bold- 
iaess, and adherence to the high principles of consti¬ 
tutional justice and right. I say that, according to 
the doctrine of that message, the people of a Terri¬ 
tory have the right at any time to meet voluntarily 
in Convention, in mass or by delegates, and to form 
a Constitution; and w r hen so formed, that, in virtue 
of the same powers of sovereignty over the subject, 
they can alter or change it, or form a new Constitu- 
tution, at any time before Congress shall have ad¬ 
mitted them into the Union as a State, under the 
Constitution as first formed and adopted in Conven¬ 
tion. 

I know that the honorable Senator’s argument 
upon this point was so mixed up with qualifications— 
such as that this act of sovereignty must be exercised 
in regular form—that I cannot assert that he has ad¬ 
mitted the principle I have laid down; but others 
have. All agree that no Constitution formed by the 
people of a Territory, whether formed in one way or 
another, has any validity or binding force until the 
admission of the Territory into the Union as a State 
under it. Then, according to the admitted principle 
that the people of a Territory have a right to form a 


4 

State Constitution, with or without an enabling act 
of Congress, or with or without any act of the Terri¬ 
torial Legislature, where is the limitation or restric¬ 
tion upon the power of the people of Kansas to 
change or wholly set aside any Constitution formed 
by them, at any time before Congress shall have ac¬ 
cepted it? Gentlemen say that the Lecompton Con¬ 
stitution was regularly and fairly formed, under 
the provisions of an act ot the Territorial Legis¬ 
lature. Let all this be admitted to be true, as 
stated—what follows ? Have the people lost all 
power over the Constitution so formed, before it is 
accepted by Congress ? Suppose the people of Kan¬ 
sas should become dissatisfied with the Constitu¬ 
tion they first agreed upon, and should desire to 
change some of the features of it, or to frame a 
new one, before the one first formed has been pre¬ 
sented to Congress, or, if prest nted, before any ac¬ 
tion has taken place in regard to it; could not the 
people, either before the presentation, or between 
the presentation to and the acceptance by Congress, 
through the same regular forms in which the Con¬ 
stitution was originally formed—that is to say, under 
an act of the Territorial Legislature—decide to set 
aside or reject the Constitution which had been pre¬ 
viously formed, and proceed to form a new one? I 
should like any honorable Senator to state why they 
have not ample and complete power over the ohole 
subject until the last moment before the admission 
of the Territory into the Union as a State, and this 
upon every principle of sound doctrine and constitu¬ 
tional law known to this country ? Certainly they 
have. Now, take the case of the Lecompton Consti¬ 
tution. Admit that it was regularly formed, as gen¬ 
tlemen contend, and that it will qpt do to look into 
any frauds nor any contrivances that may have been 
resorted to in its formation—suppose it to have been 
formed with all the regularity and fairness that they 
insist it has—have the people, in that case, so tied 
up their hands, have they so fettered their inaliena¬ 
ble right and power over the subject of their form of 
government, that they cannot alter, reform, or abolish 
it—that it must stand as it was originally formed, 
until Congress shall have passed upon it, accepting 
or rejecting it? 

The idea of the President is, that when a Territory 
is once prepared for admission into the Union, by 
the formation of a State Constitution, the Territorial 
Legislature has no power over it. 

That is not the question. The question is, have 
the people of the Territory the power over this Con¬ 
stitution, and have they exercised it ? The Legisla¬ 
ture elected in October did proceed to provide for 
taking the sense of the people in regard to this Con¬ 
stitution with the same regularity, and with a fair¬ 
ness less questionable than that of the original elec¬ 
tion of delegates to the Convention which formed the 
Lecompton Constitution, and the people have decided 
by an overwhelming majority against that Constitu¬ 
tion. 

I say, therefore, that when you come to examine 
this question on every principle connected with the 
inalienable rights ot the people, announced by the 
President and his principal supporters here, there is 
really no application before us for the admission of 
Kansas into the Union w r ith the assent of the people 
of that Territory. 

Nevertheless, there may be such a condition of 
public affairs as to override all established princi¬ 
ples, but it, must be a very strong case to do that. It 
may possibly be, that a case exists which may justify 
us in disregarding the manifest will of the people of 
Kansas, and taking this instrument presented to us 
by the President as the legitimate exponent of the 
sense of the people of that Territory, and admit it 
into the Union as a State. But unless such a case 
of overruling necessity can be made out, I maintain 
that it is enough to say, in opposition to this measure, 
that there is no application made to us by the peo¬ 
ple of Kansas Tor admission into the Union under 
this Constitution. 






5 


Having disposed of this point, as the Senate has 
aiready determined that it will take a recess until 
seven o’clock, I request that, as but a minute inter¬ 
venes between this and the appointed time for taking 
the recess, they will do me the favor to take it now. 

The Senate then took a recess until seven o’clock. 

EVENING SESSION. 

The Senate re-assembled at seven o’clock P. M. 

Mr. BELL continued as follows: I regret that the 
speech of the honorable Senator from Georgia was of 
such a character and tenor as necessarily compels 
me to go more into detail on this subject than I had 
supposed would be proper, after the very full investi¬ 
gation and discussion which has already taken place 
on most of the material points connected with it. 

Unless this bill, when it is put to the test of a final 
vote, shall assume some different shape, I shall be 
compelled to cast my vote against it; and after what 
has been said by the Senator from Georgia, I feel it 
necessary to make a record of the facts of this case, 
as I understand them—not such a record as I can 
hope will stand as long as society lasts in the lan¬ 
guage of that Senator, but such as I think will stand 
the scrutiny not only of the present but of future 
time. 

I need say but little in regard to my position in 
relation to this subject, now or heretofoi’e. I will 
' say, that I may claim to be impartial between the 
parties that divide upon it. I owe no allegiance to 
either of them, nor am I swayed by any pride of con¬ 
sistency which some may feel, leading them to sup¬ 
port all the measures that may be regarded as part and 
parcel of the original movement—of the repeal of the 
Missouri compromise. The honorable Senator from 
Georgia treated this question as directly connected 
with the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854. The contest at 
this time he regards as involving a principle and a 
policy embraced in that act. I did not believe, after 
examining that measure maturely, and looking at it 
in all its aspects, that it would ever bring any solid 
benefit to the South. I never impugned the motives 
of honorable gentlemen who took a different view of 
the subject, but I did not believe that it would lead 
to the permanent establishment of any principle of 
any practical advantage to the South; but, on the 
other hand, that it would prove injurious to Southern 
interests. I think so still. 

With regard to the present difficulties, I lay down 
as a basis of my conclusion as to what ought to be 
done, that the solution of it which promises the speed¬ 
iest termination of this dangerous slavery agitation 
is the true one. This dangerous agitation has con¬ 
tinued long enough. There has been no mitigation 
of it in the last four years. There have been inter¬ 
vals of apparent repose, but it was just such repose 
as foreboued increased disorder and commotion. It 
is time to terminate it. 

The question is, what is that solution which 
promises the speediest and most permanent remedy 
for these difficulties ? Divine that to me, whoever 
can, and I will follow Ins lead. How shall we cut 
this Gordian knot of Kansas politics? Shall we cut 
it by the sword ? Shall we first subdue the rebellious 
faction said to exist in Kansas by arms, or shall we 
attempt to unravel this tangled skein by some more 
eaceful means ? The President assures us that the 
est, and I believe I am warranted in saying, from 
the language of his message, the only mode by which 
this dangerous slavery agitation can be quieted and 

E eace be restored to the whole country, is to admit 
Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution ; or, at all 
events, that to adopt this course will localize agita¬ 
tion, and leave the country and the Halls of Con 
gress free from strife upon this exciting subject. 

The President furthermore appears, from the 
tenor of bis message, to consider that Congress is 
under an obligation, binding it in good faith, to admit 
Kansas under this Constitution. He staff s this prop¬ 
osition in his message, “ that the organic law recog¬ 
nised the right of the people of the Territory, with¬ 


out an enabling act of Congress, to form a State Con¬ 
stitution, is too clear for argument.” The assump¬ 
tion then is, that this is a Constitution formed in pur¬ 
suance of authority derived from the organic law of 
Kansas, enacted by Congress. He adds, that “it is 
impossible that the people could have proceeded with 
more regularity in the formation of a State Constitu¬ 
tion than the people of Kansas have done.” 

Iu another passage of his message he speaks of 
this Constitution as having been “fairly submitted 
for the ratincation of the people.” Hence the con¬ 
clusion, that to reject the application of Kansas to be 
admitted into the Union under these circumstances, 
would be a violation of plighted faith. It is also 
said that such rejection would be justly considered 
as an outrage upon Southern rights and feelings, in¬ 
asmuch as the only objection that can be taken to 
this Constitution by those who would reject it, is, that 
it recognises slavery. That is the position assumed 
by the President and those who support his policy 
upon this subject, with this addition, that we have 
no right to go beyond what appears on the face of 
the Constitution and the official authentication of the 
public acts and proceedings w ich led to its forma¬ 
tion and subsequent ratification by the people; and 
that whatever irregularities or frauds may have oc¬ 
curred or been practiced, connected with its forma¬ 
tion or ratification, are altogether foreign to the ques¬ 
tion before us; and so of the question which has 
been raised, as to wheiher a majority of the people of 
Kansas approve he Constitution or not. All such 
inquiries are repudiated as irrelevant. Such is the 
issue made up and presented on the part of the sup¬ 
porters of this measure. On the other side, it is said 
that ihe Lecompton Constitution has been formed in 
pursuance of no legal authority; that the organic act 
vested no such power in the Territorial Legislature; 
that it does not reflect the will of a majority of the peo¬ 
ple; that great irregularities took place in the election 
of delegates to the Convention that formed it; that the 
Constitution was not fairly submitted to the people 
for their ratification ; and, upon these grounds, they 
say it would be an outrage on the rights of the peo¬ 
ple of Kansas to impose this Constitution upon them. 

Now, how are the facts ? Has this Cons itution been 
formed in pursuance of legal authority derived from 
the organic act of Congress ? This l' understand to 
be the maiu pillar on which the argument rests, that 
Congress is bound to admit Kansas under the Le¬ 
compton Constitution, without inqui’ y as to the truth 
of any alleged irregularities or frauds connected with 
it, or as to whether the majority of the people ap¬ 
prove it or not. 

I noticed that my friend from Georgia argued thegen- 
eral question to-day on the assumption that that act did 
give to the people of Kansas the power to form a Con¬ 
stitution ; but he afterwards said that Congress was 
not bound to accept the Constitution when formed 
under such authority, though he did contend that 
Congress would be bound, provided it had passed an 
enabling act, and the people of the Territory had ac¬ 
cepted and acted under it. If Congress would not be 
bound to accept a Constitution formed under Terri¬ 
torial authority, derived from the organic law, what 
is that but an admission that the organic law does 
not contain the power claimed? If the power is 
given by the organic law, it is in the place of an ena¬ 
bling act, and would be just as binding on Congress 
when the people of Kansas, accepted it as would be 
an enabling act accepted by the people of the Terri¬ 
tory. VVith all due deference and respect to the 
opinions of the honorable Senator from Georgia, and 
the President of the United States, I think there is 
no pretext for the assumption that the organic law of 
the Territory conferred any such power as is claimed. 
If it did, the organic laws of Utah, New Mexico, and 
Nebraska conferred the same power on the people of 
those Territories, for the language is identical in all 
those laws. The Kansas organic law, after descri¬ 
bing the boundaries of the proposed Territory, pro¬ 
ceeds to declare that “ the same is hereby erected 





G 


into a temporary Government, by the name of the 
Territory of Kansas; and when admitted as a State 
or States, (if divided,) the said Territory, or anv por¬ 
tion of the same, shall be received into the Union 
with or without slavery, as their Constitution may 
prescribe at the time of their admission.” 

The organic laws of New Mexico, Utah, and Ne¬ 
braska, contain similar provisions, without the varia¬ 
tion of a word. 

I make no account of the other clause in the Kan¬ 
sas organic law, which provides that its true in¬ 
tent and meaning was, to leave the people to form 
their domestic institutions in their own way, because 
I agree with the Seuator from Georgia, that that 
gives not one jot of power which was not given to the 
people of the Territories of .Utah, New Mexico, and 
Nebreska, by their organic laws. The authority given 
in those acts to the Territorial Legislatures extended 
“ to all rightful subjects of legislation, subject to the 
Constitution of the United States.” Why was the 
peculiar language I have adverted to employed in 
the Kansas organic act? The purpose it has an¬ 
swered we are all well advised of. We know that it 
answered fully and completely the design with which 
it was incorporated into the Kansas-Nebraska act. 
It served to conciliate the support of Northern men. 
It would be a most mischievous doctrine, indeed, if 
it were true that the organic law of Kansas gave the 
people the power to form a State Constitution when 
they pleased, without anj* limitation as lo time or pop¬ 
ulation, and to demand admission into the Union 
as a right, which Congress could not resist without a 
violation of good faith. According to this construc¬ 
tion of the organic law of Kansas, not only Kansas, 
but New Mexico and Utah, must be admitted into 
the Union whenever the people of those Territories 
shall think proper to apply for admission. It might 
be no great outrage to admit New Mexico at any 
time; but to admit Utah, with its Mormon popula¬ 
tion, upon compulsion, would not be so seemly, upon 
the principle sought to be applied to Kansas. The 
people of the Territory of Nebraska, though not ex 
ceeding probably some 4,000 to 5,000 in number, 
would have a right to form a State Constitution, and 
demand admission into the Union now, or as soon 
as the}' think proper to form a Constitution and de¬ 
mand admission. 

The idea that the Kansas organic law confers on 
the people of Kansas power to for • a State Constitu¬ 
tion, and demand admission into the Union at their 
discretion is subversive, of every principle that has 
been considered established heretofore in connection 
with the admission of new States. Unless we mean 
to tear up all the old landmarks which have regu¬ 
lated us on quest ons of this description, it is a heresy 
which ought to be met at the threshold. Neverthe¬ 
less, it is solelmly maintained by the President. I 
think it is sufficient proof that this is a heresy, that 
the Senator from Georgia, who endorses everything 
else in the President’s message, abandons the'Presi¬ 
dent on this point, after he had stated in his message 
that this point was “too clear to admit of an argu¬ 
ment.” 

Well, sir, to employ the language of the President, 
it being too clear to admit of an argument that the 
organic law of Kansas confers no power upon the 
people to form a State Constitution, and there being, 
of course, no obligation of good faith resting upon 
Congress to admit that Territory into the Union 
under the Constitution now presented to us, how 
stands the main question, and upon what principles 
are we to decide it? Just as all like questions have 
stood heretofore, when Congress had passed no ena¬ 
bling act, and is to be decided upon like principles 
of reason, expediency, and propriety. The present 
application of a Territory to be admitted into the 
Union under a Constitution formed without the au¬ 
thority of Congress, is an appeal to the discretion 
of Congress, which has power to admit or reject, 
as may be thought expedient or proper, under all 
the circumstances of the case. The application is 


open to all exceptions which may be taken to it—to- 
all fair and reasonable objections—as for example, 
that the Constitution does not reflect the will of the 
people ; that a majority or any respectable minority 
of them have not been represented in the Convention 
which formed it; that a strong feeling of discontent 
and opposition exists among a large portion ot the 
people upon the subject. One object that Congress 
ought to have in view in such cases would be, to give 
general satisfaction, to lay the foundation of good 
neighborhood among the inhabitants of the proposed 
new State. Not only should the complaints of the 
majority be inquired into, but those of a minority 
also. I do not know of any instance where Congress 
has admitted a State, where there was a respectable 
protesting minority. 

Let us now examine the grounds upon which this 
application stands, according to the principles I have 
thus laid down. 

Let us now examine the grounds upon which this 
application stands, according to the principles I have 
thus laid down. I am afraid I shall be somewhat 
tedious, because I propose, at the risk of some repe¬ 
tition of what I have before said, to note all tiie lead¬ 
ing facts and circumstances connected with this sub¬ 
ject to be found in the brief and disorderly annals of 
Kansas. When the Kansas-Nebraska bill was first 
brought forwaid in the Senate, in January, 1854, 
there were probably not over a hundred white in¬ 
habitants in the Territory, excluding some few United 
States troops. As soon as the bill passed, the whole 
Territory, except the Indian reservations, was thrown 
( i pen to free competition between the North and the 
South, between anti-slavery men and pro-slavery 
men, to settle, by superiority of numbers, whether 
Kansas should be a free or a slave Territory; for, at 
that time, the popular understanding and interpre¬ 
tation of the Kansas-Nebraska act was, that the peo¬ 
ple of the Territory were authorized to settle that 
question by an act of the Territorial Legislature, and 
before they should come to forma State Constitution. 
To be sure, there was a clause in the organic law 
that this power was to be exercised, subject to the 
Constitution of the United States; but the Constitu¬ 
tion had been in existence more taan half a century, 
and there had been no judicial interpretation of the 
Constitution which could lead the people to suppose 
that they were not fullj r authorized to decide the 
question of slavery by a Territorial enactment. A 
considerable portion of the people of the North and 
East, in resentment of the repeal of the Missouri 
compromise, and resolving that the South should not 
derive any benefit from what they considered the 
wrong inflicted upon them by that measure, in the 
establishment of a new slave' State, resorted to the 
organization of an emigrant aid society, by which 
they were ecabled to furnish large facilities in money, 
and in oiher modes to quicken emigration, with a 
vii w to provide a sufficient number of settlers to 
control the election of members to the first Legisla¬ 
ture, which it was supposed would decide the ques¬ 
tion of slavery in the Territory. 

The people in the westi r . counties of Missouri, 
living in slaveholding communities, and feeling a 
deep concern that Kansas should not become a free 
Territory or a free tState, formed associations on their 
part, and adopted such other measures as they 
thought necessary to secure the ascendency of the 
pi o-slaverv settlers in the election of members to the 
Legislature. When the day of election came, on the 
30th day of March, 1855, many armed companies of 
Missourians appeared at the polls in most of the elec¬ 
tion districts and precincts; and where they found 
the judges of election opposed to their views, by 
threats of violence drove them away, and substituted 
others in their place; where they found the judges 
frjendh to their views, they allowed them to remain 
in the discharge of their duties. The result, without 
going into further details on that point, was, that 
every pro-slavery candidate but one wi s returned as 
elected. The returns of the census, taken, under a 







requirement of the organic law, one month before 
this election, showed twenty-nine hundred and three 
(2,908) qualified voters then in the Territory. At the 
election, six thousand throe hundred and seven (6,307) 
votes were polled. Of the 2,903 whose names were 
upon the census rolls, only 898 voted at the election. 
This fact appears by the comparison <>f the names on 
the poll-books with the census returns. These facts 
speak tor themselves. Either the census returns 
were false, or the Free-Soil voters were driven from 
the polls. But, be that as it may, it appears certain 
that some four or five thousand Missourious voted at 
the election, or the returns were fraudulent. 

Complaints were made from several precincts that j 
the election was carried by violence, and Governor 
Reeder set aside the returns in several cases, and 
ordered new elections; and in all these cases, except 
one, Free-Soil candidates were returned elected. 
When the I legislature met, however, they were all 
ejected, and the persons first returned as elected al¬ 
lowed to take their seats—so that the Legislature 
may be said to have been a unit on the slavery 
question. 

That body proceeded to enact a code of laws. No 
act was passed establishing or prohibiting slavery. 
The question was not put to a vote in any form, except 
on the passage of stringent laws for the protection 
of slave property; and, among others, a law was 
enacted, making it a felony, punishable by two years 
imprisonment at hard labor, to assert, either by 
speech or writing, or to circulate pamphlets, maga¬ 
zines, or any printed matter, asserting that it was 
not lawful to hold slaves in Kansas. Test oaths were 
prescribed for voters, and other regulations for the 
conduct of subsequent elections, well calculated, if 
not designed, to enable the pro-slavery party to carry 
all elections, and to keep the Government of the Terri¬ 
tory under their control; and they succeeded in that 
object until October, 1857. 

In explanation of, and in justification of, these 
high-handed proceedings, commencing with the elec¬ 
tion in March, 1855, it is alleged that a gigantic 
fraud was committed by the Emigrant Aid Society 
in attempting, by unusual and violent means, to 
make Kansas a free State. I have no defence to 
make of the proceedings of that society; but it is 
material to state that, upon investigation, I find that 
before the first election, in March, 1855, only one 
party or company of emigrants arrived in Kansas 
under the auspices of-the society, consisting of 169 
souls, men, women, and children, and that 37 of them 
voted at that election. I deplore, as much as any 
man can do, the spirit in which this Emigrant Aid 
Society was gotten up. I believe that it tended 
strongly to piomote and foment discord, not only in 
Kansas, but throughout the country. 

The Territorial Legislature having passed acts of 
the character and tendency I have stated, from that 
time forth, it is fair to both sides to state that the 
mass, at least much the largest portion of the Free- 
Soil party, or the Abolitionists, as gentlemen, accord¬ 
ing to their tastes, choose to call them—and no doubt 
many of them were Abolitionists—avowed their de¬ 
termination never to submit to the authority of the 
Territorial Government, nor to yield obedience to its 
laws. That spirit of resistance and rebellion against 
the Territorial authorities continued to exist to Octo¬ 
ber last. 

I trust that I have, so far, given the history of 
Kansas affairs truly and fairly. I agree with the 
Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter,] that, as a ques¬ 
tion of duty and public morals, the Free-State men 
ought to have submitted lo the authority of the Ter¬ 
ritorial Government, and to have waited, like good 
citizens, with patience, a remedy for their grievances, 
which time could not fail to bring, or, at least, so 
long as any hope remained that relief would come in 
a reasonable time; for, as the Senator from Virginia 
says, and says truly, whether a Government, be 
founded in fraud or usurpation, or not, there is a 
necessity for some Government; no society can en¬ 


dure in a state of anarchy; civil war and blood-shed 
are worse evils than the endurance of an unjust 
Government for a short period. 

To resume my narrative. The second election for 
members of the Legislature and Delegate to Congress 
came on in October, 1856. The Territorial Legisla¬ 
ture having passed an act in 1855 for taking the 
sense of the people upon the call of a Convention to 
form a State Constitution, at the election in October, 
1856, a vote was taken accordingly on that subject. 
The number of votes polled at that election was 
about twenty-five hundred (2,500,) the Free-State 
party not voting. All the votes cast, I believe, were 
in favor of the call of a convention, and none but 
pro-slavery men were elected to the Legislature. 

I have omitted to state in the regular order of time 
that the Free-Soil leaders called a meeting of the 
people in 1855, at which delegates were chosen to 
meet in Convention at Topeka in September of that 
year, to form a State Constitution. The convention 
met, formed a Constitution, and application was made 
to Congress for the admission of Kansas into the 
Union as a State under it. The House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, in 1856, passed a bill to admit Kansas 
into the Union under that Constitution, but it was 
rejected in the Senate. What the motive was to this 
proceeding on the part of the Free Soil party may 
well be supposed to have been, as many alleged it 
was, to be relieved from the unjust legislation of the 
Territorial Government. 

The Topeka Constitution has been stigmatized as 
a revolutionary movement. If a government had 
been set up under it, it would have been so, un¬ 
doubtedly. But, though there have been two elections 
of a Governor and members of the Legislature under 
that Constitution, yet no Government has been put in 
operation under it; though I have no doubt that 
some of the more desperate leaders of the party 
which formed this Constitution were prepared to 
take that step, and would have done so if they had 
not been overruled by the more moderate portion of 
their followers. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. 
Hunter] took no notice of the formation of the To¬ 
peka Constitution, except to ridicule it, as General 
Jim Lane’s production. 

I am not sure that he was warranted in treating it 
with so much disrespect, when the President put 
forth the doctrines to be found in his special mes¬ 
sage upon the subject of the right of the people at 
all times to change their form of government; un¬ 
less you deny to the people of a Territory a right 
which you concede to those of a State in that re¬ 
spect, which would be contrary to the principle of 
popular sovereignty so strongly maintained by the 
authors of the organic Law of Kansas. 

The Legislature elected in October, 1856, met in 
January, 1857, and, in conformity with the vote of 
twenty-five hundred of the people in the preceding 
October, they passed an act providing for the elec¬ 
tion of delegates on the 15th June to a Convention 
to meet in the following September. Gov. Walker 
made his appearance in the Territory in May. He 
published an address to the people of the Territory, 
which was declared to be in conformity with the 
views of the Presidont and his Cabinet. In that ad¬ 
dress he assured the people of his determination to 
use every means in his control to prevent all disor¬ 
der and violence at the election to be held on the 
15th of June, and earnestly advised the Free-State 
party to go to the polls and" vote for delegates to the 
Convention ; warning them, that al hough he would 
use all his influence to have the Constitution, w r hen 
framed, submitted to a vote of all the bona fide in¬ 
habitants, and had no doubt that it would be so sub¬ 
mitted, yet he had no authority to dictate that course. 
By the act of the Legislature providing for the elec¬ 
tion of delegates to the Convention, the most ob¬ 
noxious of the test oaths prescribed by the first Legis¬ 
lature was repealed, and a census was directed to be 
taken, and a register made of the qualified voters in 
each county, which was to be the basis of the ap- 





8 


portionment by the Governor of delegates among 
the several election districts into which the Territory 
was divided, and also the test of a right to vote in 
the election. One objection to going to the polls, as 
stated by the Free-State party, was, that of the thirty- 
eight counties of the Territory, including Arapahoe, 
in which there was no population, there had been no 
register made of the qualified voters in nineteen of 
them, as the law required, and that no census had 
been taken in fifteen of those nineteen ; and that, as 
a matter of course, the people in those counties could 
not vote. Gov. Walker and Secretary Stanton con¬ 
firmed this statement, and the fact is indisputable. 

I do not see what could be a greater or more fatal 
irregularity in getting up a Convention to form a 
State Constitution. Sir, one-half the counties of a 
Territory left unrepresented—allowed no voice in the 
Convention; is that no objection to a Constitution 
formed by a Convention so constituted? The Sena¬ 
tor from Georgia passed this irregularity over as a 
matter of slight or no consequence. It had, he said, 
been satisfactorily answered and accounted for. 
Where is the explanation or justification to be found 
of this gross irregulairty ? Upon what evidence 
does it rest? I have seen or heard of none which 
does not appear to me a mere pretence—an evasion. 
To say that some-Free State men. in some one, two, 
or three of those counties, refused to be registered, 
and threatended the officers with personal Violence 
if they persisted in the discharge of their duties, was 
a sufficient reason for taking no census and making 
no register at all in nineteen counties, appears to 
me to be preposterous. When gentlemen talk of there 
being no irregularity in forming the Convention, I 
must believe that they have not examined into the 
facts connected woth the subject. It is alleged that 
the population in the nineteen neglected counties 
was small. In many of them, that no doubt was so; 
but still, after deducting the nine thousand two hun¬ 
dred and fifty-one legal voters returned on the regis¬ 
ter made out in the other nineteen, judging from the 
number of votes polled in October, 1857, and again 
in January following, there cannot have been less 
than three thousand legal voters in the neglected 
counties. Thus it appears that the sixty delegates to 
the Convention were elected by the nineteen counties 
in which registers were duly made out, while not a 
single delegate was voted for or elected in the other 
nineteen counties of the Territory. Gov. Walker, in 
one of his letters to Secretary Cass, states, that in 
some of the neglected counties the people made out 
a register on their own authority, and elected dele¬ 
gates to the Convention, but they were not allowed 
seats, on the ground that their election was irregular; 
and the further significant fact is stated by him that 
in the election of October, 1857, more votes were cast 
in three of the neglected counties than were given to 
the twenty-eight delegates who formed the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution. 

But I am departing from the order of my narra¬ 
tive. The election of the 15th of June for delegates 
to the Convention was held. The Free-State party 
did not participate in it, assigning as a reason for 
their refusal to do so, besides the one I have just 
mentioned, that they had no confidence in the officers 
who were to hold the election, and the opinion given 
by Governor Walker, that any Constitution which 
might be framed would be submitted, for ratification 
or rejection, to a vote of all the people in the fall, 
whether they voted at this election or not. At this 
election, when it may be presumed the Pro-slavery 
party put forth their whole strength, only twenty- 
two hundred (2,200) votes were polled—less by three 
hundred (890) than the vote polled in October. 1856 ; 
but the loss may be fairly accounted for by the ex¬ 
clusion of the pro-slavery voters in the nineteen 
•counties in which there was no register. 

The convention met on the 5th of September, but 
adjourned to a day in October, as it was understood, 
to await the result of the Territorial election fixed for 
the first Monday of that month. Gov. Walker had 


given the strongest assurances of his purpose to use 
all the means in his control to preserve order and 
prevent violence in that election. Conventions were 
called, nominating candidates on both sides. On the 
one side they were called National Democratic can¬ 
didates; on the other side, Five-State candidates, 
or, if you please, Abolition candidates; it is no mat¬ 
ter by what name they were called. By that time, 
two thousand regular troops had arrived in the Ter¬ 
ritory, sent at the earnest reques 4 of Gov. Walker, 
who stated that that was the only mode of preserv¬ 
ing peace and preventing bloodshed, lie stationed 
them at different and the most exposed points, on 
election day, to prevent inroads from Missouri, or 
any other disturbance at the po Is. The result was, 
that the Free-State party proper cast some seven 
thousand six hundred (7,60 ) votes; and the Na¬ 
tional Democratic party, composed of pro-slavery 
men and such of the Free-State Democrats as united 
with them in the election, polled some three thou¬ 
sand seven hundred (3,700) votes. It is material to 
state that Ransom, the candidate for Delegate to Con¬ 
gress, nominated by the National Democratic party, 
was Free Soil in his principles. Altogether there 
were upwards of eleven thousand votes cast at that 
election, after rejecting some twenty-eight hundred 
(2,800) votes, found to have been fraudulently re¬ 
turned; sixteen hundred (1,600) from the famous Ox¬ 
ford precinct, and twelve hundred (1,200) from Mc¬ 
Gee county, in which no poll was opened. These are 
all strong facts, but the Senator from Georgia can 
see nothing in them. That Senator asked for the 
evidence by which these alleged frauds were proved. 
He said that Gov. Walker and Secretary Stanton 
were not entitled to any greater credit than common 
witnesses, and by courtesy alone did he concede 
them that. He said they travelled over the country, 
looked about, and came to the conclusion that so 
great a number of voters could not be there. This 
was the sort of evidence upon which his friend from 
Kentucky held his immense fabric of fraud and un¬ 
fairness. Sir, not only did Governor Walker and 
Secretary Stanton examine the matter, but others of 
undoubted integrity have confirmed the existence of 
the frauds alleged. A census has been taken, and 
forty-nine is returned as the number of residents in 
the Oxford precinct. 

Mr. WILSON There are forty-three voters in 
the precinct of Oxford, according to the actual cen¬ 
sus returns. 

Mr. BELL. There could not be many in that 
county, because the Shawnee Indians own nearly all 
the land. How many are there in the whole county? 

Mr. WFLSON. Three hundred or four hundred 
voters in ihe whole county. 

Mr. BELL. I have examined the proof, but I 
cannot retain all the facts in my memory. The Ox¬ 
ford returns were rejected by Governor Walker, on 
the ground of irregularity in the returns. Singular 
as it may seem, he appears to have considered it 
necessary, to justify his interposition, to find out 
some irregularity in the certificate or return, al¬ 
though he was convinced from the first that the re¬ 
turn was fraudulent. Well might the eloquent Sena¬ 
tor from Kentucky exclaim that fraud seems to have 
become native to the region of Kansas, and to claim 
the privilege of being a sort of established institu¬ 
tion there.. 

The result ofthe October election was, that nearly 
every member elected to the Territorial Legislature 
was a b ree-State man. 

The Convention reassembled in October, accord¬ 
ing to adjournment, and formed the Constitution 
which is now before us. When the fact transpired 
that the Convention had not submitted the whole 
Constitution to a vote of the peeple, and that the 
question of slavery alone was to be submitted, and 
that in a form and under the restriction of a test 
oath, which would prevent the Free-State party from 
voting, such a commotion immediately arose as 
threatened to lead to bloodshed and civil war. In 








this condition of affairs, acting Governor Stanton, 
as a means of averting such a calamity, called an 
extra session of the Territorial Legislature. That 
body, when assembled, passed a law for taking the 
sense of the people upon the Constitution recently 
formed, on the 4th of January last —the day fixed by 
the Constitution for an election of State officers and 
members of the Legislature under that Constitution. 
The 21st of December last was appointed by the 
Convention to take a vote of the people upon the 
slavery clause of the Constitution in this form—“the 
Constitution with slavery,” “the Constitution with¬ 
out slavery.” There were 6,793 votes returned as 
cast on that day—6,226 for the Constitution with 
slavery, and 567 for the Constitution without slavery. 
The remarks of the honorable Senator from Ken¬ 
tucky in regard to that election were justified by the 
circumstauccs of the case. Votes enough were re¬ 
turned in favor of the Constitution to overcome any 
majority that had ever before been given in the Ter¬ 
ritory. There had been eleven thousand and odd 
votes given in the October election, and it was ar¬ 
ranged to show a vote to exceed one-half that num¬ 
ber. It is well established by a commission ap¬ 
pointed to investigate the subject, under authority of 
the Legislature, that 2,700 or nearly one-half the six 
thousand and odd votes returned as having been 
cast on the 21st December, in favor of the Constitu¬ 
tion, were fraudulent; and about an equal number 
returned as polled for State officers and members of 
the Legislature on the 4th January last. In the vote 
taken by authority of the Territorial Legislature, on 
the 4th of January, on the Lecompton Constitution, 
there were ten thousand majority against it. The 
Senator from Georgia says that on the same day 
there were over ten thousand votes cast for State 
officers and members of the Legislature under the 
Constitution ; and that to sustain the fairness of the | 
votes against the Constitution, the joint vote should i 
have been twenty thousand. I must conclude that 
on that point the honorable Senator from Georgia 
made his statements altogether in the dark, and at 
random, in regard to the true facts and circumstances 
attending the votes taken on the 4th of January. 
He asks the reason why these ten thousand claimed 
as a majority vote against the Constitution did not 
vote in the election for State officers and members ! 
of the Legislature. The explanation must be obvious I 
to all those who pretend to know anything about re- | 
cent events in Kansas. A Convention was called by ' 
the Free-State party, to decide whether they should | 
vote or not in the election for State officers and j 
members of the Legislature, on the 4th of January. ; 
It was contended that if they voted it would be taken 
as a ratification of the Constitution, just as the Presi- ! 
dent now construes the vote actually given in that I 
election by a portion of that party. This view being j 
taken by a majority, the Convention came to a reso¬ 
lution not to vote; but after the regular Convention 
adjourned the minority got together, and, after con¬ 
sidering the question fully among themselves, de¬ 
cided that it was best to make an effort to carry 
these elections; and those who chose—more than 
half their party—voted under the recommendation 
of the minority of the Convention. 

I believe that no attempt has been made, from any 
respectable source, to cast a doubt on the genuine¬ 
ness of the vote cast against the Constitution on the 
4th of January last. The result of that vote shows, 
incontestably, that there must be a majority of at 
least four or five to one, of the pe pie of Kansas, 
against this Constitution. 

" I have now narrated the most important facts iff 
the history of Kansas affairs, which have any mate¬ 
rial bearing upon the question bef re the Senate, and 
upon which we may rely in deciding whether this 
Constitution should be accepted or rejec ed. These, 
however, are not the only material facts connected 
with the case: I mean facts calcu ated to show 
whether it is expedient, just, or politic, to admit 
Kansas with this Constitution. Assuming it as a 


point that cannot be contested, that a large majority 
is opposed to the Constitution, what are the further 
facts connected with this subject material to be no¬ 
ticed? Gov. Walker declares to you that, a large 
majority of the people of Kansas are determined to 
res'st the organization of a State Government under 
this Constitution. Mr. Stanton expresses the same 
opinion. The people themselves tel! you the same 
thing, through iheir Territorial Legislature. Resolu¬ 
tions h ive been adopted by that Legislature, pledg¬ 
ing their fortunes and their lives in resisting this 
Constitution. But there are some facts that speak 
louder than words. The President has now under 
him two thousand troops in Kansas; and he ex 
presses the hope that when this measure shall pass, 
he may be able to withdraw them. Why has he not 
withdrawn them before? He tells us why. It is not 
considered safe to do so. When and how long after 
the adoption of this measure, before he will consider 
it safe to withdraw the troops from Kansas ? Of 
course, after the people of Kansas shall, voluntarily 
or by force, h tve yielded to the authority of this 
Constitution. It may take twice two thousand .troops 
to force this Constitution on a people of whom such 
a large and determined majority are opposed to it; 
and who have shown, by their obstinate persistence 
in opposiiion to the Territorial Government up to a 
late day, that they are of a character and cast of 
men that we may justly apprehend will continue 
their resistance. They say that no State Govern¬ 
ment shall be organized under this Constitution, if it 
be accepted by Congress. I know it is calculated 
that the friends of law and order, and the natural 
tendency to reaction after all great excitement, will 
induce submission. The result may still be civil 
war; but I trust they will submit. 

But, sir, I am not yet done with ihe evidences in 
my possession to show the true state of affairs in 
Kansas. More than fifteen months ago, the leading 
pro-slavery men in that Teiritory abandoned the 
idea of making it a slave State; and I desire to go 
a little into detail on that point, because I know 
that, if this measure should be rejected, it will be 
said in some quarters of the South, nay, the idea is 
already artfully propagated, that a slave State can 
be established permanently in Kansas, if the meas¬ 
ure now before the Senate shall be adopted. The 
Senator from Georgia said to-day that his friend 
from Kentucky only had the evidence of Gov. 
Walxer and Secretary Stanton as to the frauds al¬ 
leged to have been practiced in Kansas; and who 
were they? Those gentlemen, he said, did nothing 
from the time they went to Kansas until they were 
taken out of it, except to violate the Constitution of 
the United States, the organic law of Kansas, and 
to break down the Administration that had sent 
them there. Those statements confirm me in the 
impression that the Senator from Georgia has made 
his entire speech with but very little knowledge of 
the state of things in Kansas. Will he recognise 
the name and authority of Dr. Stringfellow, who, 
for the first two years of the existence of Kansas 
under the Territorial Government, was the very soul 
of the Pro-slavery party—the Speaker of their 
House of Representatives during the first two Le¬ 
gislatures. What is his opinion ? I have no direet 
authority to speak for him, but I am told that he 
has published a letter, which is to be found in one 
of the public journals, stating that since July last 
he has abandoned all hope of making Kansas a slave 
State, and considers it idle to make any further 
effort to effect that object. Will the Senator from 
Georgia recognise the name and credit the state¬ 
ments of such men as Dr. Tebbs, a leading and in¬ 
fluential upholder of the pro-slavery party in Kan¬ 
sas, while there was any hope of success?—of A. W. 
Jones, who traversed the South to obtain recruits to 
sustain the pro-slaver} 1- cause in Kansas? If the 
Senator ignores the authority of these names, will 
he respect that of Gen. Whitefield, so well known 
as the former Delegate from Kansas in the other 








10 


House? Will be please to point out a single pro¬ 
slavery leader in Kansas, unless it be John Calhoun, 
the Surveyor General of the Territory, who now 
maintains that Kansas can be nude a slave State? 
I doubt if he does. Will they point out a single 
pro-slavery leader, who has been in that Territory 
trom the first, who did not concur with Gov. Walker 
and Secretary Stanton in their views and in their 
policy in relation to Kansas affairs? Of the twenty 
pro-slavery journals in Kansas, all but one approv¬ 
ed the policy of Gov. Walker. They agreed that it 
was idle to attempt to make Kansas a slave State at 
any time since January, 1857, the time Gov. Geary 
left the Territory. If the Senate will bear with me, 
I will read a few passages from a slip that has been 
placed in my possession, taken from the press of the 
Washington Union. I am informed, on authority 
that I can vouch, if any question is made about it, 
that the publication of the letters which are copied 
in this slip was suppressed by a member of the 
Cabinet, and I do not know but by the President 
himself. These are the prefatory remarks of the 
editor of the Washington Union: 

“The following letter, addressed to a gentleman in 
1 this city, has been handed to us for publication. We 
4 cheerfully give place to the letter, for the purpose of 
4 removing any erroneous impression which may still 
4 linger in the minds of some of our Southern friends 
‘ in regard to the present feelings, sentiments, and 
4 position of the pro slavery men of Kansas. Mr. 
‘ Tebbs, the writer, is widely known and universally 
4 respected. He is a Virginian by birth, a slavehold- 
4 er, and is one of the early settlers of Kansas. He 
4 has been a member of every Legislature since Kan- 
4 sas became a Territory ; and it is scarcely necessary 
‘ for us to add, that in each instance representing a 
4 very decided pro-slavery constituency. His radical 
4 views on the slavery question have rendered him 
4 peculiarly obnoxious to the Black Republicans of the 
‘ Territory.” 

Then comes the letter of Mr. Tebbs, from which I 
take this extract: 

“Now, sir, how can it be that Governor Walker 
‘ has done so much, as is charged, to abolitionize 
4 Kansas ? If Kansas is abolitionized it has been done 
‘ by the pro-slavery party, and not by Governor 
‘ Walker, for they had adopted this policy long before 
‘he had entered the Territory. But every candid 
4 man will see at a glance, and must admit, that 
‘neither Walker nor the pro-slavery party have done 
‘ it; but the simple fact that more anti-slavery men 
‘ than pro-sla very men have gone to Kansas —whether 
4 from interest, natural or unnatural causes, it matters 
4 not—they are there. But I will not anticipate events 
‘ or hazard predictions. Let the great principle of 
‘ popular sovereignty be fairly and honestly carried 
4 out. That is all I ask.” 

Let me also read an extract from a letter of General 
Whitfield: 

“ Washington City, September 2,1857. 

“Editor of the Union: I have seen the letter ad¬ 
dressed by Dr. Tebbs to a gentleman in this city. 

‘ His letter fully and fairly represents the condition 
4 of parties in Kansas, both before and after the ad- 
4 vent of Governor Walker. And I have been per¬ 
fectly astonished, upon my arrival here, to find the 
4 crusade from the South upon Governor Walker, 
‘charging him with an attempt to ‘ abolitionize Kan- 
4 sas.’ It required no action from Governor Walker 
4 to make Kansas a free State. Its doom, if it is fixed, 

‘ was fixed long before Robert J. Walker ever entered 
‘ the Territory. 

“I repeat again, sir, that, knowing Dr. Tebbs 
4 well, and knowing him to be thoroughly posted upon 
‘Kansas affairs, I endorse fully his views and con- 
4 elusions, as expressed in his letter to you.” 

Dr. Tebbs makes this further ^statement in the let¬ 
ter from which I have just read : “ That in January, 

‘ 1857, four or five months before Governor Walker ar- 
‘ rived in the Territory, the pro-slavery party held a 


‘ Convention of all the members of the Legislature and 
‘ of delegates from every county in the Territory, to 
‘discuss the condition of parties, and leading pro- 
4 slavery men deliberately declared it as their opinion, 
4 that the pro-slavery party proper was in a hopeless 
4 minority.” The Convention to which I have just 
alluded concluded that it was no longer worth while 
to attempt to form a slave State in Kansas. When a 
Convention was held, in July last, to nominate can¬ 
didates for the October election, over which Judge 
Elmore, one of the largest slaveholders in the Terri¬ 
tory, presided, the same opinions were announced. 
Not only that, but, from the date of January, 1857, 
the position was taken by the leading pro-slaverymen, 
that the Constitution to be formed by the delegates 
to be elected on the 15th of June should be submitted 
to the people; and if not, that it ought to be rejected 
by Congress. General Whitfield himself said, in a 
speech made last summer, that it ought not to get 
ten votes in Congress if it were not so submitted. 

I have adduced the testimony furnished by the let¬ 
ters and verbal statements of the early and most in¬ 
fluential pro-slavery leaders in Kansas, to show that 
the views I have presented of the actual state of things 
m that Territory do not rest exclusively upon the in¬ 
formation furnished, or the opinions expressed, by 
Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton. I was 
myself under the impression, last spring and summer 
that Governor Walker, as well as the President and 
his Cabinet, was looking more to party and political 
objects than the support of any particular interests 
the South could have in the management of Kansas 
affairs ; and it is due to that gentleman, whose course 
has been so harshly denounced in this debate, that 
he should be vindicated and sustained by a reference 
to the course and policy of leading pro-slavery par¬ 
tisans, upon whom no shadow of suspicion rests, as 
to their perfect fidelity to the slavery cause in Kan¬ 
sas. It appears now, incontestably, that long before 
Governor Walker arrived in Kansas, and even before 
the advent to power of the present Administration, 
the idea of making Kansas a slave State had been 
abandoned by those leaders who had the deepest in¬ 
terest in the question, being slaveholders themselves. 
The utmost they had any hope to accomplish, by the 
conciliatory policy adopted in the Convention held on 
the second Monday in January, 1857, and again in 
the Conrent'on held in July following, so far as the 
interest of slavery was concerned, was to protect the 
right of pronerty in the slaves then in the Territory. 
Governor Walker, in his letter to Secretary Cass, 
dated 15th July last, states that “ it was universally 
admitted here (Kansas) that the only question is this— 
whether Kansas shall be a conservative, constitution¬ 
al, Democratic, and ultimately free State, or whether 
it shall be a Republican and Abolition State.” 

After it became known in Kansas that the Admin¬ 
istration had changed its policy, and particularly 
after the increased exasperation of the Free-State 
party which ensued upon the promulgation of the 
Lecompton Constitution, I learn from a well-in¬ 
formed and reliable source that a large proportion of 
the slaves have been sent out of the Territory ; and 
that of the two or three hundred there a year or two 
ago, not more than one hundred remain—some say 
not exceeding fifty. 

It is a most striking and remarkable feature in the 
present status of this question in Kansas, that it is 
not the slaveholders who are most active and forward 
in keeping up this controversy against all hope of 
making Kansas a slave State, but political adventur¬ 
ers, chiefly office-holders or office-seekers, who have 
not the slightest interest in the questions, beyond the 
expectation of some personal benefits. Henderson, 
who is implicated in the perpetration of election 
frauds, is, I am informed, a special mail agent. Cal¬ 
houn is surveyor general of the Territory, and Mc¬ 
Lain his chief clerk. Others I might name, who are 
onlv seekers of office. I fear I may have done Gen¬ 
eral Whitfield, who is an office-holder, an injury, by 
quoting him as authority in support of the policy o*f 




11 


Governor Walker. The Senator from Missouri, [Mr. 
Green,] in his opening speech, announced that he 
had seen a telegraphic despatch, stating that he had 
been notified by the Free-State party to leave the 
Territory. I hope that is not true; and as there has 
been no confirmation of the statement, I conclude that 
there was no foundation for it. The danger to which 
I may have exposed him lies in another quarter. I 
hope he has had the prudence to abstain from taking 
any part in this question since he was informed of the 
President’s present views, which would expose him 
to executive vengeance. 

My friend from Florida [Mr. Mallory] said, in his 
able speech the other day, that it would be difficult to 
persuade the people 01 the South, that if this Consti¬ 
tution be rejected by Congress, it will not be upon 
the ground that it recognises slavery. That is also 
the opinion of the honorable Senator from Georgia 
and others. Unless it be that these honorable Sena¬ 
tors want some immediate pretext fora movement in 
the South, I advise them to investigate this question 
more fully than they seem to have "done, before they 
conclude to make the rejection of this measure, should 
it be rejected, a casus clisjunctionis. We are told 
that it will be difficult to persuade the people of the 
South that any other objection exists to this Consti¬ 
tution, except that it recognises slavery, and these 
opinions are avowed in the face of the accumulated 
frauds and irregularities connected wdth its history, 
and though it is clear that four-fifths of the people of 
Kansas are opposed to it! 

It will not do for these gentlemen to say, that there 
is no record or other satisfactory proof to show the 
frauds and irregularities alleged against the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution, or of many other statements made 
by the opponents of this measure in relation to the 
state of things existing in Kansas. The supporters 
of this measure in the Senate and in the House of 
Representatives have obstinately persisted in voting 
down every proposition to investigate and take proof 
upon the contested questions of fact; and I take it for 
granted that this course would not have been per¬ 
sisted in, unless it was understood that the facts 
would turn out to be as they have been charged. 

If I have not wholly misconceived and misstated 
the material points in the history of Kansas affairs 
which preceded the formation of the Lecompton Con¬ 
stitution ; if I have not misrepresented the facts con¬ 
nected with its formation ; if I am not wholly mistaken 
in the views I have presented of the existing state of 
public sentiment in Kansas in relation to this Consti¬ 
tution, is it becoming the character of the National 
Legislature to accept this instrument as the organic 
law of the new State which is proposed to be admitted 
into the Union ? 

Is it fit, is it becoming the Senate of the United 
States, to stamp this Constitution, with all its attend¬ 
ant circumstances, with their approval, and send it 
to Kansas, to be abided by or resisted to blood by the 
people there ? Surely, sir, there ought to be some 
great and overruling political necessity existing in 
the condition of affairs, to justify such a proceeding. 
The President, I understand, from his special mes¬ 
sage, to say that such a necessity does exist. He in¬ 
sists that in no other way can this dangerous slavery 
agitation be terminated, and peace be restored to the 
whole country. He insists that, if Kansas shall be ad¬ 
mitted into the Union under this Constitution, this 
sectional controversy will, at all events, be excluded 
from the Halls of Congress; that theagitation upon this 
subject will be localized, and confined to the people 
whom it concerns. This is no new conception ; such 
an experiment has been made before. The country 
has already had the benefit of a great lesson upon this 
subject, if it wdll only profit by it. If I may venture 
to trespass on the patience of the Senate, I propose 
to sketch the history of that experiment and its re¬ 
sults. I think it will be found rich, and abound¬ 
ing in suggestions as to the probable consequences 
of the renewed experiment proposed to be made, in 
localizing slavery agitation in Kansas. 


Four years ago, when it was proposed to repeal the 
Missouri compromise—to adopt the principle of non¬ 
intervention, and concede to the people of the Terri¬ 
tories the right to settle the question of slavery in 
their own w r ay—it was said by the advocates of the 
measure, that, as soon as the principles of it came to 
be understood, all agitation and discussion upon the 
subject of slavery in the Territories would be local¬ 
ized—’excluded from Congress—and the country 
would be left in undisturbed repose. So boldly and 
confidently were these views maintained, that the 
whole Southern delegation in Congress, Whigs and 
Democrats, with seven or eight exceptions, together 
with many Democrats from the free States, came into 
the support of the measure. How w T ere these bold 
predictions verified ? In less than one month of the 
time during which the Kansas-Nebraska bill was 
pending in Congress, nearly the whole North was in 
a flame of resentment and opposition. Old men, of 
high character and great influence, who had for 
twenty years opposed the policy and designs of the 
Abolition faction in the North, suddenly became its 
allies and coadjutors. Thousands of the best citi¬ 
zens at the North, who had exerted all their energies 
to repress all opposition to the execution of the Fugi¬ 
tive Slave law of 1850, became suddenly converts to 
Free-Soilism. The religious feelings of whole commu¬ 
nities became frenzied. The pulpit was converted into 
an engine of anti-slavery propagandism, and hundreds 
of thousands of sober-minded and conservative peo¬ 
ple at the North, who had never countenanced sec¬ 
tional strife on the subject of slavery, evinced that 
they had thrown off their conservatism, and were 
ready to array themselves under the banner of any 
party leader or faction, to check the progress of the 
South in what they considered its aggressive policy. 

After that demonstration of opposition at the North, 
but little more was said in debate of the tranquillizing 
character of the measure. But its most influential 
supporters from the South, becoming inflamed and 
irritated by the fierce invectives with which the 
measure was assailed, both within and out of Con¬ 
gress, became, in their turn, reckless (apparently at 
least) of all consequences, and seemed only bent on 
victory—on obtaining a triumph by passing the bill! 
It was in vain that they were admonished that they 
were adding largely to the Abolition faction at the 
North; that they were increasing the Free-Soil ele¬ 
ment of political power in that section. They ad¬ 
mitted no distinction between Abolitionists and Free- 
Soilers, and denounced all at the North who opposed 
the bill as Abolitionists and foes to the South. Some 
gentlemen declared that the screams of the Abolition¬ 
ists were music to their ears. It was idle to warn men 
in such a tempest of passion, that, instead of sowing the 
seeds of peace as they had promised, they were sow¬ 
ing dragons’ teeth, that would spring up armed men. 
So intense did the feeling become on the subject, that 
some Southern members of Congress, who had gone 
into the support of the bill on the idea that the Mis¬ 
souri restriction act was a violation of the treaty with 
France, and who would not have listened for a mo¬ 
ment to the admission of aliens to the right of suf¬ 
frage in the Territories, lost sight of these views 
under the influence of the furor that was gotten up 
among the friends as well as the opponents of the 
measure; and they became even more determined 
champions of the bill, when these grounds of their 
original adhesion were entirely swept away—one by 
the rejection of the Clayton amendment, and the 
other by the Badger proviso—than they were at the 
outset. 

There were, however, a few of the supporters of the 
bill tvho to the last contended that the intemperate 
demonstrations of opposition at the North were but 
the ebullitions of temporary excitement, which would 
subside as soon as the equitable and just principles 
of the bill should be exhibited in their practical op- 

{ >eration in Kansas. On what flimsy grounds that de- 
usion was indulged, and how soon and under what 
circumstances it vanished, I need not recount. The 



12 


recollection of every patriot must still be painfully 
impressed with them. It is enough to say, that soon 
after these principles were put in operation in Kan¬ 
sas, disorder, anarchy, and civil war, ensued in rapid 
succession. It required the strong arm of the Gov¬ 
ernment of the United States and the interposition 
of the military force to sustain the Terrimr al Gov¬ 
ernment; and even now, after the lapse of four years, 
we still find that the presence of a military force is 
necessary to maintain peace. So much for the effect 
of that measure on Kansas and the country. How 
has it been in Congress? Need I ask that question? 
Has not the subject of slavery in the Territory been 
the absorbing subject of our thoughts and discus¬ 
sions at every session of Congress since the pas¬ 
sage of the Kansas-Nebraska act ? And as for the 
character and temper of the debates upon this sub¬ 
ject, have they not, in asperity and fierceness, far 
exceeded those of any antecedent period of our his¬ 
tory ? 

Seeing that the principles of non-intervention and 
opular sovereignty established by the lvansas-Ne- 
raska act had not been successful in repressing 
slavery agitation and sectional controversy, the frier.ds 
of that measure appear, in the last resort, to have in¬ 
voked the Supreme Court to interpose its ermine to 
stay the fratricidal strife ; and that august tribunal, 
the last stay and hope of the Constitution to preserve 
the balance of justice even amid the storms of danger¬ 
ous and powerful factions, has plunged into the vor¬ 
tex of political and sectional controversy. But that 
high tribunal, with all th% advantages of the respect, 
veneration, and confidence, which it has justly en¬ 
joyed for sixty years, has not been able to stem the 
tide of sectional controversy, which still rolls onward, 
and threatens to sweep us on to a fatal catastrophe. 

The President tells us in his special message that 
every patriot had hoped the Kansas-Nebraska act 
would have put a final end to the slavery agitation 
which for twenty years “ convulsed the country and 
endangered the Union.” That statement is not quite 
fair. If he had' gone back thirty-seven years, he 
would have included the Missouri Compromise. 
Every patriot hoped that that measure was a fiual 
settlement of all difficulties in regard to the Territo¬ 
ries then belonging to the United States. If the 
President had adverted to that other period, 1849 and 
1850, when there was another slavery agitation that 
convulsed the country and endangered the Union, he 
might have said, with perfect truth, that every patriot 
had hoped that the Compromise measures then 
adopted would put a quietus upon slavery agitation. 
The great men of both parties, the distinguished 
statesmen of the country of the period of 1820 and of 
1850, realized by their wisdom aud patriotism the 
expectations of the great founders of our system, who 
anticipated difficulties on this subject. So important 
was the promised exemption from future slavery 
agitation held out by the Compromise measures of 
1850 felt to be by the people, so highly appreciated 
and hailed with such joy, that in 1852, when the two 
great parties of the country met in Convention to 
make their platforms and nominate their candidates 
for the Presidency, both felt compelled, by public 
sentiment, to solemnly pledge themselves to abide by 
or acquiesce in the Compromise of 1850, and never 
again to countenance agitation on the subject of 
slavery in any form whatever. Each of the nomi¬ 
nees of the two parties, General Pierce and General 
Scott, in his letter accepting his nomination, pledged 
himself that, if he should be called to the Presidency, 
he would faithfully conform to the policy to which 
his party had pledged itself upon this subject. So 
deeply was the interest diffused throughout the coun¬ 
try in favor of maintaining the Compromises of 1850, 
that, though there was not a breath of suspicion 
against General Scott’s fidelity and sincerity in main¬ 
taining the cause of peace, yet, because it was sup¬ 
posed that he had some prominent friends who had 
not that object so much at heart, that slight ground 
of distrust had the effect to turn the election in favor 


of the more-trusted candidate of the Democratic party, 
General Pierce—more trusted for the devotion of his 
friends to the maintenance of the Compromise of 
1850—by the overwhelming number of 252 electoral 
votes to 42 given to General Scott; while the distin¬ 
guished Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. IIai.e,] 
who allowed his name to be run on the Free-Soil 
ticket, received in the whole Union a popular vote ot 
only one hundred and fifty-seven thousand (157,000,) 
and uot a single electoral vote. That, however, is not 
the strongest evidence of the feeling that was man¬ 
ifested in regard to the Compromise measures of 
1850. In the elections which came off in the fall of 
1852, and in the succeeding spring, one hundred and 
fifty-nine (159) Democratic members were elected to 
the House of Representatives, giving the Democratic 
party a majority of eighty-four (84) in that House. 

Mr. HALE. And 1 lost my eleciion to the Senate 
the same vear. 

Mr. BELL. Yes, sir; and others, then members 
of the Senate, as well as yourself, might never have 
been returned to the Senate again, but for the pas¬ 
sage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. 

When Congress met, in December, 1853, the Dem¬ 
ocratic party had the large majority in the House of 
Representatives before stated; and among the mi¬ 
nority there were only three or four members who 
desired to further agitate the question of slavery, 
while in the Senate there were only five Free-Soilers, 
all told ; so effectually had the Free-Soil movement 
in the North been put down by the Compromises of 
1850. 

The Senator from Georgia said to-day that the 
Compromise of 1820 had never given satisfaction or 
quiet anywhere, North or South. Let me tell him 
that at the last session of the 32d Congress—the very 
one that preceded the introduction of the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill—a similar one, saving the clause repeal¬ 
ing the Missouri Compromise, and establishing the 
principle of non-intervention, passed the House of 
Representatives, with scarcely an allusion to the 
slavery restriction act of 1820. There were only forty- 
three (43) votes against the bill in the House, and 
some of them from the North. On that occasion 
there was not a word said of the propriety or justice 
of repealing the Missouri Compromise. On the last 
night of that session I contributed with the distin¬ 
guished Senator from Texas [Mr. Houston] to defeat 
the passage of that bill in the Senate. The objections 
urged against it were, that there was no white popula¬ 
tion in the Territory; that the measure would be a 
violation ot numerous Indian treaties; and at last the 
bill failed, more from the want of time than from any 
other cause; not a single Southern Senator, besides 
myself and the Senator from Texas, interposed a 
word against the bill. So much as to the correct¬ 
ness of the statement of the Senator from Georgia, in 
relation to the effect of the Missouri Compromise. 
That bill was laid on the table on the last night of 
the session—the third of March, 1853. General 
Pierce, on the next day, in his inaugural address 
congratulated the country on the restoration of peace 
and harmony, and, true to his former pledge, he sol¬ 
emnly promised that he would do nothing during his 
administration to disturb the condition of things 
then so happily existing in the country. In his first 
message, on the meeting of Congress in December 
following, he renewed this pledge; but in less than 
two short months from the date of that message, the 
whole political heavens, then beaming brightly, and 
sending joy and cheering to the hearts of the people, 
the whole scene, as it were, in a twinkling, and as by 
the agency of some diabolical magic, was changea. 
The political skies were suddenly overcast by dark 
and portentous clouds, out of which a storm arose, 
which, in the language of the President, “ has con¬ 
vulsed the Union, and shaken it to its very centre.” 

I now ask the attention of the Senate to the effect 
of the experiment of localizing slavery agitation in 
the Territories, made in 1854, in changing the com¬ 
plexion of parties both in Congress and in the coun- 







1 

try- ^ In the Congress which passed the Kansas-Ne- 
braska bill, we hare seen that there was at the com¬ 
mencement of the session, in December, 1853, a Dem¬ 
ocratic majority of eighty-four in the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives, and only four Free-Soilers, and in the 
Senate a like number—so small, yet so distinct in 
their principles, that neither of the two great parties 
then known to the country knew well how to arrange 
them on committees.' 

Mr. HALE. You left them off. 

Mr. BELL. The Whigs were afraid to touch them. 
Mr. Chase was a Democrat, and was so recognised 
by his brethren in the Senate, and was taken care of 
by them in arranging the committees; yet he was 
one of the gentlemen whom I have designated as Free- 
Soilers. Now, let us see what was the effect of the 
Kansas-Nebraska act on the elections which ensued 
in the fall of 1854, just on the heels of the adoptiun 
of that measure. One hundred and seven Free-Soilers 
were returned to the House of Representatives, 
and the Democratic party, instead of having a ma¬ 
jority of eighty-four in that House, found itself in a 
minority of seventy-six; and in the Senate the num¬ 
ber of Free-Soilers was increased to thirteen. Such 
was the complexion of the two houses of Congress in 
the 33d Congress, which assembled in December, 
1855. Now, we find in the Senate twenty Free-Soil¬ 
ers. How many more they may have in the next 
Congress, will depend upon the disposition we make 
of the question now before the Senate. I call upon the 
Senator from Georgia to say whether he will have that 
number limited or not. Does he want a sufficient 
number to prevent the ratification of any future 
treaty of acquisition ? How long wo 11 it be before we 
have ihat number, if the Southern Democracy persist 
in their present course? They would seem to be 
deeply interested in adding to the power of the Re¬ 
publican party. 

I consider that the most fearful and portentous of 
ail the results of the Kansas-Nebraska act w r as to 
create, to build up a great sectional party. My friend 
from Ohio, who sits near me, ]Mr. Wade] must al¬ 
low' me to say, that I regard his party as a sectional 
one. 

Mr. WADE. Is not the other side a sectional party ? 

Mr. BELL. So far as they are confined to the 
South they are, but they say that they lap over. 

Mr. W ADE. Lap over farther South still. [Laugh¬ 
ter.] 

Mr. BELL. I consider that no more ominous and 
threatening cloud can darken the political horizon 
at any time. How formidable this party has already 
become may be well illustrated by the fact that its 
representative candidate, Mr. Fremont, was only 
beaten in the last Presidential election by the most 
desperate efforts; and I feel warranted in saying, 
that but for the imminent prospect of his success 
which shone out near the close of the canvass, Mr. 
Buchanan would not have attained his present high 
position. 

Such have been the trophies of the victory—the 
triumph achieved in the passage of the Kansas-Ne¬ 
braska act in 1854. It is with all this sad experience 
of the effects of that experiment in localizing the 
slavery agitation in the Territories, that we are now 
called upon to renew' it. To be sure, we are told the 
circumstances are not the same. They are not identi¬ 
cal, I admit. For instance, we are told that if there 
is any wrong done by accepting the Lecompton Con¬ 
stitution, the people of Kansas can easily redress it. 
They have, it is said, an inalienable right to change 
their Constitution when and how they please, and 
that they are not fettered by any restriclions con¬ 
tained in this Constitution. I was sorry to hear the 
honorable Senator from Virginia, [Mr. Hunter,] 
whom I regard as one of the old-fashioned supporters 
of strict principles—to whatever inconvenience they 
sometimes lead—say, in his late speech, that he was 
inclined to think the provision m the Lecompton 
Constitution which prescribes that after the year 
1864 it may be amended in the way therein pointed 


out, does not prevent any alteration or change of it 
w'hich the people may think proper to make before 
that time; nay, I may sav that I was astonished to 
hear such a declaration coming from that Senator, 
when we all know that the only purpose of that pro¬ 
vision in the Constitution was to prevent any amend¬ 
ment before 1864. This is the very restriction relied 
upon to give color to the change already made and 
propagated in some of the slaveholding States, that 
those members of Congress from the South who may 
by their votes defeat this measure, will have pre¬ 
vented the establishmeut of a slave State in Kansas. 

But the President takes the bolder ground that the 
restriction in the Lecompton Constitution, though in¬ 
tended to prevent any amendment before 1864, is 
altogether unavailable. He asserts the doctrine that 
the people of a State can change their Constitution 
at any time; and thisjhe says is a fundamental prin¬ 
ciple of American freedom. He refers to the second 
clause of the bill of rights in the Lecompton Consti¬ 
tution, to show that the people of Kansas have rec- 
cognised this fundamental principle. -In that clause 
it is declared that “all political power is inherent in 
the people, and all free Governments are lounded on 
their authority and instituted for their benefit, and 
therefore they have, at all times, an inalienable and 
indefeasible right to alter, retorm, or abolish their 
form of government, in such a manner as they think 
proper.” This language is identical with that em¬ 
ployed in the bill of rights to be found in the Consti¬ 
tutions of Connecticut, New Jersey, Tennessee, Ala¬ 
bama, and Mississippi, and probably in those of 
many other States, for I have not had time to ex¬ 
amine them all. What is meant by this declaration, 
to be found in the bill of rights of most or all of our 
State Constitutions ? Nothing more is meant than to 
assert the right of revolution—the antagonistic doc¬ 
trine to that of passive obedience, at one period so 
strongly maintained in England. 

It will be dfficult to maintain, by any sound pro¬ 
cess of reasoning, that this recognition of the right 
of the people to change their form of government has 
any reference to a change of their Constitutions / for, 
in all of them, their right to do that is not only fully 
recognised, but the mode in w r hich it can be done is 
distinctly prescribed. The principle asserted in a 
bill of rights, in any State Constitution, is, that the 
people, when their rights of person and of property 
are trodden down, when their dearest interests are 
disregarded and sacrificed by an unjust, arbitrary, 
and oppressive Goverrment, they have a right to 
change or abolish it by a resort to the sword, if found 
necessary. They have a right, under the circum¬ 
stances I have described, to establish a pure Democ¬ 
racy, and dispense with the use of all organic laws 
or Constitutions, if they choose. They may even es¬ 
tablish a monarchy, if they believe that their rights 
and interests would be best protected and promoted 
under such a form of government; but the right to 
do all this is clearly a revolutionaiy one. There is 
no danger in the recognition of this right; but there 
is danger in the admission of the doctrine avowed by 
the President, that a majority of the people of a State 
may set aside all the guards in their Constitutions 
against sudden and capricious changes of its provis¬ 
ions, and change it as often and when they please. 
Such a doctrine reduces all organic laws to a level 
with acts of the Legislature. If such a doctrine shall 
come to be generally admitted and practiced upon, 
it cannot fail, in the end, to lead to oppression and 
anarchy, and make a resort to revolution and a 
change of the form of government the only means of 
safety. 

I had supposed that the chief merit of the great 
American invention of written Constitutions and or¬ 
ganic laws was in the protection they afforded to the 
rights of the minority against the tyranny cf an arbi- 
brary and capricious majority. The doctrine of the 
President strikes down at a blow the whole system 
of defences and guarantees intended for the security 



14 


of minorities. Majorities can always protect them* 
selves. 

But it is said that the great State of New Yoi k and 
Maryland have practiced upon the doctrine of the 
President in changing their Constitutions. If that be 
true, I maintain that they acted upon a revolutionary 
principle; and the sooner that is understood, the bet¬ 
ter for the country and its institutions. A genet al 
acquiescence among the people in an irregular mode 
of changing their Constitutions may result in no im¬ 
mediate mischief; it is in the precedent that the 
danger lies. 

The honorable Senator from Georgia announced 
some great tiuths to-day. He said that mankind 
made a long step, a great stride, when they declared 
that minorities should not rule; and that a still higher 
and nobler advance had been made when it was de¬ 
cided that majorities could only rule through regular 
and legal forms. He asserted this general doctrine 
with reference to the construction he proposed to 
give to the Lecompton Constitution; and to say that 
the people of Kansas, unless they spoke through 
regular forms, cannot speak at all. He will allow me 
to say, however, that the forms through which a ma¬ 
jority speaks in forming a State Constitution must 
be provided and established by competent authority; 
and his doctrine can have no application to the Le¬ 
compton Constitution, unless he can first show that 
Ihe Legislature of Kansas was vested with legal au¬ 
thority to provide for the formation of a State Con¬ 
stitution; for, until that can be shown, there could 
be no regular and legal forms through which the 
majority could speak on that question. But how 
does that Senator reconcile his doctrine with that 
avowed by the President, as to the futility of attempt¬ 
ing, by constitutional provisions, to fetter the power 
of the people in changing their Constitution at pleas¬ 
ure? In no Slates of the Union so much as in some 
of the slaveholding Spates would such a doctrine as 
that be so apt to be abused by incendiary demagogues, 
disappointed and desperate politicians, in stirring 
up the people to assemble voluntarily in Convention, 
disregarding all the restrictions in their Constitu¬ 
tion, and strike at the property of the slaveholder. 

The honorable Senator from Kentucky inquired 
what, under this new doctrine, would prevent the 
majority of the people of a majority of the States of 
the Union from changing the present Federal Con¬ 
stitution, and abrogating all existing guarantees for 
the proh ction of tne small States, and any peculiar 
or particular interest confined to a minority of the 
States of the Union. The aualogy, I admit, is not 
complete between the Federal Constitution and a 
Constitution of a State; but the promulgation of the 
general principle, that a majority of the people are 
fettered by no constitutional restrictions in the exer¬ 
cise of their right to change their form of govern¬ 
ment, is dangerous. That is quite enough for the 
purposes of demagogues and incendiary agitators. 

When I read the special message of the President, 
I said to some friends that the message, taking it 
altogether, was replete with more dangerous heresies 
than any paper I had ever seen emanating, not from 
a President of the United States, but from any politi¬ 
cal club in the country, and calculated to do more in¬ 
jury. I consider it in effect, and iu its tendencies, as 
organizing anarchy. 

We are told, that if we admit Kansas with the Le¬ 
compton Constitution, this whole difficulty will soon 
Le settled by the people of Kansas. How ? By dis¬ 
regarding the mode and forms prescribed by the Con¬ 
stitution for amending it? No. 1 am not sure that 
the President, after all the lofty generalities an¬ 
nounced in his message in regard to the inalienable 
rights of the people, intended to sanction the idea 
that all the provisions of the Lecompton Constitu¬ 
tion, in resptet to the mode and form of amending it, 
should be set aside. He says the Legislature now 
elected may at its first meeting call a Convention to 
amend the Constitution; and in another passage of 
his message lie says that this inalienable power of 


the majority must be exercised in a lawful manner. 
This is perplexing Can there be any lawful enact¬ 
ment of the Legislature in relation to the call of a 
Convention, unless it be in conformity with the pro¬ 
visions of the Constitution ? They require that two- 
thirds of the members of the Legislature shall concur 
in passing an act to take the sense of the people upon 
the call of a Convention, and that the vote shall be 
taken at the next regular election, which cannot be 
held until two years afterwards. How can this diffi¬ 
culty be got over? The truth is, that unless all con¬ 
stitutional impediments in respect to forms be set 
aside, and the people take it in hand to amend the 
Constitution on revolutionary principles, there can 
be no end of agitation on this subject in less than 
three years. I long since ventured the prediction 
that there would be no settlement of the difficulties 
in Kansas until the next Presidential election. To 
continue the agitation is too important to the in¬ 
terests of both the great parties of the country to dis¬ 
pense with it as long as any pretext can be found for 
prolonging it. In the closing debate on the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill, I told its supporters that they could 
do nothing more certain to disturb the composure of 
the two Senators who sat on the opposite side of 
the Chamber, one from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sum¬ 
ner,] and the other from Ohio, [Mr. Chase,J than to 
reject that bill. Its passage was the only thing in 
the range of possible events by which their political 
fortunes could be resuscitated, so completely had 
the Free-Soil movements at the North been paralyzed 
by the Compromise measures of 1850. I say now 
to the advocates of this measure, if they want to 
strengthen the Republican party, and give the reins 
of government into their hands, pass this bill. If 
they desire to weaken the powei of that party, and 
arrest the progress of slavery agitation, reject it; 
and if it is their policy to put an end to the agitation 
connected with Kansas affairs at the earliest day 
practicable, as they say it is, then let them remit this 
Constitution back to the people of Kansas, for their 
ratification or rejection. In that waj r the whole diffi¬ 
culty could be settled b fore the adjournment of the 
present session of Congress, without the violation of 
any sound principle, or ihe sacrifice of the rights of 
either section of the Union. 

But the Piesident informs us that threatening and 
ominous clouds impend over the country; and he 
feai s that if Kansas is not admitted under the Le¬ 
compton Constitution, slavery agitation will lie re¬ 
vived in a more dangerous form than it has ever yet 
assumed. There may be grounds for that opinion, 
for aught I know; but it seems to me that if any of 
the States of the South have taken any position on this 
question which endangers the peace of the country, 
they could not have been informed of the true condi¬ 
tion of affairs in Kansas, and of the strong objections 
which may be urged on principle against the accept¬ 
ance by Congress of the Lecompton Constitution. And 
I have such confidence in the intelligence of the peo¬ 
ple of the w! lole South, that when the history' and char¬ 
acter of this instrument shall be known, even those 
who would be glad to find some plausible pretext for 
dissolving the Union will see that its rejection by Con¬ 
gress would not furnish them with such a one as 
they could make available for their purposes. 

When the Kansas-Nebraska bill was under discus¬ 
sion in 1854, in looking to all the consequences which 
might follow the adoption of that measure, I could 
not overlook the fact that a sentiment of hos.ility to 
the Union was widely diffused in certain States of 
the South, and that her sentiment was only pre¬ 
vented from assuming an organized form of resist¬ 
ance to the authority of the Federal Government, at 
least in one of the States in 1851, by the earnest re* 
monstrance of a sister State that was supposed to 
sympathize with her in the project of establishing a 
Southern Republic. Nor could I fail to remember 
that the project—I speak of the Convention held in 
South Carolina, in pursuance of an act of the Legisla¬ 
ture—was then postponed, not dropped. The argu- 



15 


ment was successfully urged, that an enterprise of 
such magnitude ought not to be entered upon with¬ 
out the co-operation of a greater number of States 
thsn they could then certainly count upon. It was 
stated that, all the cotton-planting States would, be¬ 
fore a great while, be prepai ed to unite in the move¬ 
ment, and that they, by the force of circumstances, 
would bring in all the slaveholding States. The 
ground was openly taken, that separation was of 
inevitable necessity. It was only a question of time. 
It was said that no new aggression was necessary on 
the part of the North, to justify such a step. It was 
assumed that the operation of this Government from 
its foundation had been adverse to Southern interests, 
and that the admission of California as a free State, 
and the attempt to exclude the citizens of the South, 
with their property, from all the territory acquired 
front Mexico, was a sufficient justification for dis¬ 
union. It was not a mere menace to deter the North 
from further aggressions. These circumstances made 
a deep impression on my mind at the time; and from 
a period long anterior to that, I had known that it 
was a maxim with the most skilful tacticians among 
those who desired separation, that the slaveholding 
States must be united—consolidated in one party. 
The object once effected, disunion, it was supposed, 
would follow without difficulty. 

I had my fears that the Kansas-Nebraska bill was 
expected to consolidate the South, and to pave the 
way for the accomplishment of ulterior plans, by 
some of the most active supporters of that measure 
from the South; and these tears I indicated in the 
closing debate on that subject. Some of the sup¬ 
porters of that measure, I fear, are reluctant now to 
abandon the chances of finding some pretext for agi¬ 
tating the subject of separation, in the South, in the 
existing complications of the Kansas embroilment. 

To what extent the idea of disunion is entertained 
in some of the Southern States, and what importance 
is attached to the policy of uniting the whole South 
in one party, as a preliminary step, may be inferred 
from a speech delivered before the Southern Con¬ 
vention lately held in Knoxville, Tennessee, by Mr 
De Bow, the president of the Convention, and the 
editor of a popular Southern Review. I will only 
refer now to the fate to which the author resigns 
those who dare to break the ranks of that solid pha¬ 
lanx in which he thinks the South should be com¬ 
bined—that is, to be “held up to public scorn and 
public punishment as traitors and tories, more 
steeped in guilt than those of the Revolution itself.” 

I have but a few words more to say on this sub¬ 
ject. I have been pained at many things which I 
have heard in the progress of this debate.' The hon¬ 
orable Senator from New York [Mr. Seward] and 
the honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hammond] opened new and wider and more alluring 
fields for discussion—alluring, not by'their tendency 
to train the public mind to contemplate the de¬ 
struction of the Union with complacency, but as sug 
gesting subjects of debate which offer an unlimited 
range for intellectual display'—rich themes for the 
gildings of fancy. I shall not venture beyond the 
border* of these new fields of discussion. I could 
not but be struck and fascinated by the grand out¬ 
lines of the gorgeous yet beautiful filling up of the 
picture of Southern power and resources presented 
by the able and eloquent Senator from South Caro¬ 
lina; but the fascination was all gone when my eye 
was at leisure to rest for an instant on the dark 
backgiound which the rich pencillings of a master 
artist were intended to light up. Stilt these chang¬ 
ing emotions did not prevent me from feeling some 
surprise that the eloquent Senator, whom I know to 
be both just and generous, could find it in his heart 
to close his speech without some slight expression of 
gratitude—ottering some small tribute to the worth 
of that glorious old Federal Union, which, after all 
its plunderings by tariffs, navigation laws, internal 
improvements, and national banks, had still left the 


South in possession of such multiplied riches and 
blessings. 

I wish I could with propriety pass without notice 
some passages in the speech of the Senator from 
NewTork, [Mr. Seward,] towards whom personally 
I have no unkind feeling. It was with pain and re¬ 
gret that I listened to the utterance of sentiments by 
that Senator, affording material of the most effective 
nature for agitation at the South, and calculated to 
excite the feelings of those who still cling to the hope 
that the Union may be perpetual. The honorable 
Senator spoke with deliberation; and what he said 
cannot be considered to have escaped his lips in the 
heat affd excitement of debate. Several weeks ago, 
he vauntingly proclaimed to the Senate that the bat¬ 
tle of freedom was already won. But that was not 
enough. When he was last on the floor, assuming 
oracular mien and voice, he read to us, as from the 
book of fate, the decrees which he seemed to think 
it concerned the South to know. 

Some of us had flattered ourselves, that when the 
Kansas question should be settled, peace and quiet 
would reign in Congress and throughout the country. 
The honorable Senator from New York announced 
to us that this was a gross delusion ; that the admis¬ 
sion of Kansas as a free State would not terminate 
the slavery agitation in Congress or anywhere else; 
that neither Congress nor the country is to have any 
respite from its evils, and that there never will be 
quiet on the slavery question until the South shall 
have abandoned all further efforts to extend slavery 
under the Federal Constitution. He even under¬ 
takes to advise the South on this point. He could 
counsel nothing less. No conquering general in a 
cooler manner, or with an air of greater authority, 
ever dictated to vanquished enemies the terms on 
which they could have peace. But he does not en¬ 
courage us with the hope of peace and quiet, even if 
the South should yield to his counsel, aad seek no 
further extension of slavery. Agitation, he informs 
us, is to go on until the Supreme Court of the United 
States is" reorganized, or shall recede from some of 
the doctrines, so abhorrent to him, it has lately pro¬ 
mulgated. I shall not enter into any discussion of 
these doctrines. I will say, however, that if the 
opinions announced by that court are founded on 
sound principles, and formed within the pale of judi¬ 
cial authority under the Constitution, they will stand, 
and ought to stand; if otherwise, like hundreds of 
decisions in the judicial history of this country and 
Great Britain, they will yield to further and closer 
investigation without anv disorganizing interposition 
of the legislative power. If, as many gentlemen 
here say, they were extrajudicial opinions, obiter 
dicta , voluntary announcement of sentiments and 
opinions, they can do no injury in any quarter; be¬ 
cause, whenever the same questions shall again arise, 
they will be open to argument and readjudication. 
Whatever may be the decision of that Court on the 
power of Congress to interfere with the questions of 
slavery in the Territories, and however clear and 
well-founded in principle and authority its decision 
may be, I have supposed that, inasmuch as it is a 
question of constitutional construction or interpieta- 
tion, and relates to the jurisdiction and power of a 
separate department of the Government—a depart¬ 
ment always more or less uuder the influence of po¬ 
litical considerations—the question would not be re¬ 
garded as permanently settled; and that whenever 
in future, as heretofore, Congress shall be called 
upon to legislate concerning a Terri ton', the ques¬ 
tion will again become a subject a discussion and 
such decision as the majority shall think proper to 
declare. Congress was never swayed by the opinion 
of the Supreme Court on the question of its power 
to establish a National Bank; cor will it be con¬ 
trolled by any of its opinions on questions involving 
political considerations. If 1 am right in these 
views, and when it is clear that no injury can be 
done to either the North or the South by the opinion 
recently pronounced by the Supreme Court upon 





this question, why should it be made a pretext for 
continuing: this dangerous slaver}' agitation? 

As to the opipion of the court on the question of 
the recognition of property in slaves by the Consti¬ 
tution, I will say but a word or two. I will not enter 
into any argument of it, but I will refer the honora¬ 
ble Senator from New York, and others who agree 
with him, to an authority which I th ; nk they will 
not disavow, and for which all who have any admi¬ 
ration for great ability, associated with all those per¬ 
sonal qualities that give weight and character to a 
statesman, wiil respect. I allude to Rufus King, of 
the organic period of our history. I allude to him 
not only as authority upon a point of constitutional 
construction, but as” a model of Senatorial propriety 
in the discussion of questions affecting the personal 
sensibilities and interests of brother Senators. He 
is known to have been, if not the mover, the ablest 
champion of the slavery restrictive policy. He was 
also a member of the Convention that framed He 
Constitution. In his speech at the commencement 
of the controversy upon this subject, in 1817, in re¬ 
viewing the history of the concession made by the 
Convention which framed the Constitution to the 
slaveholding States, of a representation founded upon 
three-fifths of their slaves, added to their free popu¬ 
lation, be contended that it was unequal and unjust 
to the free States, on the ground that it was a repre¬ 
sentation founded on property, and so understood 
when the concession was made; and if the principle 
was right, it ought to have extended to property in 
the free States as well as in the slave States. 

That eminent man, while he showed himself a de¬ 
termined opponent of the extension of slavery, never 
sought to weaken or undermine any of the securities 
which existed for the protection of slave property, 
by the announcement of any doctrine or sentiment 
not in strict conformity with the obligations and re¬ 
quirements of the positive institutions of the Govern¬ 
ment, in the counci s of which he participated. He 
always sptike within and under the Constitution. 
He may have held slavery in as great abhorrence as 
the Senator from York professes to do. He may 
have considered that, as a question of Christian 
eth cs, man cannot be the subject of property; but if 
such was his opinion, the greater the honor that will 
attach to his memory as a man and a3 a statesman, 
for his forbearance to set up his private opinions as 
of higher authority than the Constitution and Gov¬ 
ernment, in the service of which he was engaged. 

The honorable Senator irom New York further 
announced to us, in exultant tones, that “ at last 
there was a North side of this chamber, a North 
side of the chamber of the House of Representa¬ 
tives, and a North side of the Union, as well as a 
South side of all th«se;” and he admonished us 
that the time was at hand when freedom womd as¬ 
sert its due influence in the regulation of the domes¬ 
tic and foreign policy of the country. 

When was theie a time in the history of the Gov¬ 
ernment that there was no N<-rth side of tins cham¬ 
ber and of the other? When was there a time that 
there was not a proud array of Northern men in 
both chambers, distinguished for their genius and 
ability, devoted to the interests of the North, and 
successful in maintaining them? 

Though it may be true that Southern men have 
filled the Executive chair for much the largest por¬ 
tion of the time that has elapsed since the organ.za- 
tion of the Government, yet when, in what instance 
was it, that a Southerner ha3 been elevated to that 
high station without the support of a majoritv of the 
freemen of the North? 

Ho you of the Norih complain that the policy of 
the Government, under the long-continued influence 


of Southern President 
vour interests ? Has 
lias it crippled your 
your energies ? Has u 

one department of human effort? Let your iuc, __ 

tile marine, your ships whitening every sea—the fruit 
of wise commercial regulations and navigation laws; 
let your flourishing agriculture, your astonishing pro¬ 
gress in manufacturing skill, your great canals, your 
•thousands of miles of railroads, your vast trade, in¬ 
ternal and external; your proud cities, and your ac¬ 
cumulated millions of moneyed capital, ready to be 
invested in profitable enterprises in any part of the 
world, answer that question. Do you complain of a 
narrow and jealous policy under Southern rule, in 
extending and opening new fields of enterprise to 
your hardy sons in the Great West, along the line of 
the great chain of American lakes, even to the head 
waters of the father of rivers, and over the rich and 
fertile plains stretching southward from the lake 
shores? Let the teeming populations—let the hun¬ 
dreds of millions of annual products that have suc- 
cceeded to the but recent dreary and unproductive 
haunts of the red man—answer that question. 

That very preponderance of free States which the 
Senator from New Y T ork contemplates with such sat¬ 
isfaction, and which has moved him exultingly to 
exclaim that there is at last a North side of this 
chamber, has been hastened by the liberal policy of 
Southern Presidents and Southern statesmen; and 
has it become the ambition of that Senator to unite 
and combine all this great, rich, and powerful North 
in the poiicy of crippling the resources and repress¬ 
ing the power of the South? Is this to be the one 
idea which is to mould the polic} r of the Government, 
when that gentleman and his friends shall control it? 
If it be, then I appeal to the better feelings and the 
better judgment of his followers to arrest him in his 
mad career. Sir, let us have some brief interval of 
repose at least from this eternal agitation of the 
slavery question. Let power go into whatever hands 
it may. Let us save the Union! 

1 have all the confidence other gentlemen can have 
in the extent to which this Union is entrenched in 
ihe hearts of the great mas3 of the people of the 
North and South; but when I reflect upon the des¬ 
perate and dangerous extremes to which ambitious 
party leaders are often prepared to go, without 
meaning to do the country any mischief, in the 
struggle for the imperial power, the crown of ihe 
American Presidency, I sometimes tremble for its 
fate. 

Two great parties are now divding the Union on 
this question. It is evident to every man of sense, 
who examines it, that practically, in respect to 
slavery, the result will be the same both to North 
and South; Kansas will be a free State, no matter 
what may be the decision on this questihn. But 
how that decision may affect the fortunes of those 
parti s is notcertain, and there i3 the chief difficulty. 
But the greauct question of all is, how will that 
decision affe't the country as a whole ? 

Two adverse yet concurrent and mighty forces are 
driving the vessel of state towards the rocks upon 
which she must split, unless she receives timely aid— 
a paradox, yet expressive of a momentous and per¬ 
haps a fatal truth. 

There is no hope of rescue unless the sober-mind¬ 
ed men, both of the North and South, shall, by some 
sufficient influence, be brought to adopt the wise 
maxims and sage counsels of the great founders of 
our Government. 

Mr. President, I will not longer trespass upon the 
indulgence of the Senate. 


0F CONGRESS 



BUELL & BLANCHARD, Printers, Washington, D. C. 









